|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Argentine tango blog: Interaction Design interludes by Oleh Kovalchuke |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scale of time perception. Conversation from IxD list.
<< Back to "Interaction Design is Design of Time" topic
Apr. 5, 2006 - Oleh Kovalchuke
Indeed, interaction design is design of perceived time. "Perceived" qualifier is superfluous if you happen to be an experientialist (good book on experientialism and on prototype theory of classification is "Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things" by Lakoff).
Notice that attention is drawn to time intervals listed below only when the time intervals are violated. Hence design of attention is related but narrower category than design of time.
To design time one needs to be aware of time properties. All times are approximate within one order of magnitude.
Time Interval Perception Example of interval perception Possible underlying mechanism 0.1 sec perception of causation "Is this button sticky or what?" - this interval is important for nonchoppy animation eye saccade, low level neuron pattern activation 1 sec perception of interval of taking turns in conversation "Well, I clicked. How come nothing happens?" 10 sec time interval before attention begins to drift from a single task "I like the colors. And the point is?" - this particular interval is especially important in movie editing low level pattern activation in neocortex All of the above is important for design of perceived system response time (see GUI Bloopers by Jeff Johnson).
Attention span is important for interaction design of single layout.
Recognition is somewhere in the above time scale.1 min recall, formation of mental model???, just guesses here 10-30 min formation of flow experience "I think I see where you going", "Where was I?" predictive pattern preactivation in higher layers of neocortex 4-8 hours duration of flow experience "What time is it?", "Eureka!" predictive pattern preactivation in higher layers of neocortex 1 day short memory storage, formation of long term memory "Who was that chap who wrote about design of time yesterday?" interaction of hippocampus and neocortex 1 week learning simple skill "Gmail? What is it?" Hebbian learning? 1 year learning complex skill "Unix command interface? No problem..." formation of significantly new patterns and propagation of stable patterns into lower levels of neocortex, Hebbian learning? 10 years formation of personal values "Who am I?" - a midlife crisis question persistent neocortex patterns Lifetime (100 years) individual memory "Who was that bully in the high school?" persistent neocortex patterns Thousands of years societal, cultural memory "Who is this God person anyway?" storytelling Millions of years DNA memory "Whom will I sleep with tonight?" - perennial question of selfish gene "lizard" brain As others have been noting, perception of time is very tricky. A wonderful book on the cultural ingredient in that recipe:
A Geography of Time: The Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist, or How Every Culture Keeps Time Just a Little Bit Differently http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465026427
I can't say I've ever applied ideas from this book to work in interaction design, and I find the idea that started this thread to be um, a less than useful characterization of the challenge of interaction design. But I might one day. One memorable take-away for me is the notion that people in some cultures behave according to "clock time" ("I'll meet you at 7"), while others behave according to "event time" ("I'll meet you after supper"). The ripple effects of this difference are *very* far-reaching.
I do love the book, and recommend it to those of you who do find this topic valuable.
Apr. 5, 2006 - Oleh Kovalchuke
>...and I find the idea that started this thread to be um, a less than
>useful characterization of the challenge of interaction design. But I
might one day.It's not unusual. I like this quote on acceptance of new ideas I have heard on NPR one day: "There are three stages of scientific discovery: 1. people deny it is true, 2. deny it is important, and 3. credit it to the wrong person."
Why is "Interaction design is design of time" theory important?
Practical implications:
Unified approach to interaction design evaluation. A stumble to ponder "Why
is this warning written in green and not in red?" could be quantitatively
compared to two clicks and scroll to use drop down menu, to system
responsiveness.For once system responsiveness could be incorporated as one of the more prominent properties of interaction design (among other time consuming properties). Jeff Johnson lamented lack of attention to system resposiveness in his book "GUI Bloopers".
Time based approach to interaction design suggests criteria for quantitative evaluation of various interaction designs, both heuristics and usability testing - the holy grail of academia. For that to happen the time perception table below would have to be expanded and validated (potential degree generating project). Of course in business environment Krug's "Don't make me think" approach, reduce clutter in mental and physical load will remain preferred, cost efficient method.
HI Marc,
I love that reference. My background is in anthropology and specifically the area known as "culture and personality" where psychology and anthropology converge, so your example is quite excellent b/c it talks about how personal frames of reference are embedded in our linguistic constructs. Oy! I can go on here all day and night!
Now! You said that you didn't find the initial framing that interaction design is (and I'm paraphrasing) directly related to in whole or in part to the design of time useful to your thinking of Interaction Design.
Now, I know you do think about the linguistic or dialog attributes of interaction design, but I'm curious as to what other areas do you feel the IxD manipulate in order to provide their end of the user experience solution. (Disclaimer: on purpose I'm trying to separate IxD from UX more generally, and that there is quite a specific discipline of IxD that works with other disciplines in concert to create that solution. So if presentation design is melody, would IxD be rhythm--i.e. the tempo. Obviously that analogy doesn't quite work perfectly, but rhythm and tempo are the "time" aspects of a musical composition and a percussionist is that specialist of managing rhythm, but also managing tones of percussion.
I do soo that we are the ones who set the pace, and even the rhythm of digital solutions, while the presentation layer (industrial or visual design) set the emotional tone. Now rhythm and tempo also offer an emotional and thus aesthetic of their own, but in a more secondary fashion than the melody.
(oy! I hope someone can bring this back to the practical very soon! Even my ears are starting to bleed.)
I was going to stay out of this, but David pulled me in <smile>.
> Now, I know you do think about the linguistic or dialog attributes of
> interaction design, but I'm curious as to what other areas do you feel the
> IxD manipulate in order to provide their end of the user experience
> solution.Well, if "interaction" is an exchange of signals or signs between people and a system, or between people through a system... and if "interaction design" is about creating the appropriate means or conditions for that exchange... what are all the ingredients involved in doing a good job of interaction design? Here's an off-the-cuff start of a list, a partial answer to your question:
o semantics: embodying the "right" meanings in the system and the interface
o symbols: mapping the meanings to elements that map "naturally" to those meanings -- visual elements, audio elements, gestures, textures, relative locations, movements and changes, etc.
o relationships: sequences, branching structures, conditional relationships, state-transition structures, entity-relationship structures,... we could go on and on. Some of these relationships exist inside the system, some of them exist out in the world. This is partly subsumed by the "semantics," but deserves separate mention because it is so much a part of the tangled set of concerns in interaction design.
o constructs: [I really don't know what words to use here -- in practice I can talk about things specific to the project: an interface, a page, a transaction, a sequence, etc. But this conversation about the nature of interaction design forces me to be abstract.] We create organized groupings of symbols (organized in space, time, or both) which themselves have meaning.
o behaviors: communication typically happens through some change, and we all use many categories of these things in our work. Action-response pairs. Feedback. Attention-getting or attention-directing behaviors.
o sensing: inputs of all stripes
o processing: computational transformations, retrievals, generative behaviors, simulation behaviors, and much cetera
I'll stop there, not because this list is complete, but because it contains the basics that come to mind as I write and because it's long enough to illustrate my reaction against the generalization that "interaction design is the design of time."
Of course time is a factor. Interactions happen over time. And yes, we should indeed think about things like pacing, perceived meanings of pauses, the effect of response time, and so on. But when I do that I think about "pace," not "time."
And if I'm teaching interaction design, it might be a useful exercise to have time be a core concern of an assignment. As one example, it is useful to think about the "dramatic arc" of a transaction -- the rise of expectation and uncertainty, how much is tolerable, how soon it comes to resolution and how that makes people feel (tip of the hat to Brenda Laurel and her book, "Computers as Theater").
But would I teach interaction design as the design of time? What would that mean? What would it involve? How would it not create a class of big-thinking, ill-equipped students?
I did like the thread in this conversation about attention. I frequently deal with issues having to do with whether/when something takes initiative, and how. How and when to guide someone's attention. Whether the interaction is taking place at the center of someone's attention, at the periphery, or as part of a confusing set of demands for attention. Attention is a limited resource, and many designs suffer from the assumption that people have more of it to give than they really do.
I hope this doesn't come across as cranky. This discussion is interesting, and another tip of the hat to Oleh for offering his thoughts to the group. It's a risk to put ideas, big statements like this out into the public, and this is a good discussion.
But again, for me "time" is so general and ambiguous as a concept and so partial in its coverage of the real work of interaction design that I can't, you know, harness my ox to it. Can't hang my hat on it. I lit it, but it doesn't smoke.
Sorry so lengthy. Who has time to read this stuff? <grin>
> Why is "Interaction design is design of time" theory important?
> *Practical implications*:
> Unified approach to interaction design evaluation.It seems wrong to me to refer to IxD as the "design of time" rather than "design that unfolds over time", particularly as a unifying approach. Musicians and filmmakers face similar challenges since the form of their work inherently takes shape over time, yet they wouldn't define what they do solely in those terms. Rather, time is a material -- we are designing *with* time but not time itself.
I think there was a consensus that the goal is not always speed but just as a reminder -- maybe sometimes the goal is "slow". http://www.slowdesign.org/
Apr. 6, 2006 - Oleh Kovalchuke
After some discussion on IxD list here is refined definition of interaction design.
We live in time. The goal of interaction design is design of time in user defined meaningful way. User gives time meaning based on perceived length of the time interval. The scale for time perception provides practical outline of meaning of different time periods.
Interaction designer has to be able to uncover and incorporate those time interval meanings, which users do not consciously articulate (this is what contextual interviews as well as education in philosophy and human sciences (physiology, linguistics, cognitive psychology, anthropology, sociology...) are for) - this important qualifying concept is often dismissed in marketing.
User time can be loosely (photos, architecture, sovereign application window) or tightly (movies, music, software Wizard) controlled by designer. To paraphrase: users can be offered few or many interaction choices by design.
It follows then that meaningless time fluff should be removed by interaction designer. Time disruptions due to safety concerns are not meaningless hence should not be considered time fluff and should be incorporated into design. It also follows then that to see and to incorporate meaning interaction designer has to be well versed in human sciences (and in philosophy).
I believe that this definition addresses slow design, Myst game experience, social nature of humans as well as safety concerns.
Does Sustainable Interaction Design Exist?
Google tells me it doesn't. But I'm convinced that there have to be certain principles that interaction designers can follow that are more environmentally friendly than others. I work at a product design company filled with designers looking to develop products that are less damaging and more environmentally friendly, but for the most part, interaction designers are stuck on the sidelines developing interfaces and screens that don't have any of the material or manufacturing choices of industrial designers. This has been frustrating-- I hate feeling like I'm rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Obviously, the most environmentally friendly product we can create is no product at all, and often interaction design is better at this than industrial design when we are able to turn a product into a service. I'm going to go ahead and make a sweeping generalization that interaction design is more sustainable than other forms of design, but I refuse to believe that our work is done and we simply need to keep doing what we're doing. Shouldn't user-centered design take into account the user benefits of sustainable design?
Do we resist putting "print" buttons on websites? Do we aim for smaller applications because down the road this means less storage devices and less electricity used to transport all those bytes? Should our sustainable concerns focus on social issues, like the social benefits of community software, universal information access, and self-empowerment? Should we be building power consumption meters into every product's interface?
What are the best practices of sustainable interaction design?
Apr. 23, 2006 - Oleh Kovalchuke
Does Sustainable Interaction Design Exist?
I was looking for additional examples of importance of thousand year period for interaction design when lo-and-behold Mike has raised the question of sustainable design.
I think the ethics of interaction design come into focus and change on the scale of thousands of years. Consider these examples of questions reflecting heightened ethical awareness, which bear on eventual changes to interaction design: "Does this design contribute to global warming?", "Do we really need the tools facilitating cannibalism?" (cannibalism was widespread among all cultures according to this source), "Who is this God person anyway?".
The sustainable design questions have been added to the perception time scale: http://www.tangospring.com/IxDtopicWhatIsInteractionDesign.htm
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
