« Entering a Task | Main | In Search of a New HP Way »

March 07, 2005

The Art and Science of UI

This week�s session was inspired by Apple Mac!

� I have used Mac for a few years when I started my career in Advertising. I switched to windows and have been using windows for the past six years. Now, thanks to Prasad and Partha, I allowed myself to �indulge� in a Mac Mini. When I booted the mini and saw the Apple Smiley, I felt like I just met an old flame! I re-realized how much influence a User Interface has on the user�er no� not the user, yes, the Experiencer! I guess UI has such an influence on the experiencer because our natural course of interaction with any external entity begins with our five perceptions. And when it comes to many basic perceptual inputs into our brain like color, size, shape, structure, texture, touch and smell, we get influenced even before our consciousness-control-mechanism kicks in. That is why a great UI like we see in Apple products inspires us even before our thinking mind begins to interact consciously. I am going to be more conscious about UI when I am designing anything (a web site, an event, or even a simple person to person interaction). I am going to begin and continue any design process from the user-experience perspective.

� Well, while what you are saying might be largely true, I have at least one experience where I did the complete backend first without ever bothering about the UI and it turned out well.

� Yes, I agree. Many times I have started from the back end and felt it was right thing to do.

� I have been noticing that the moment some idea or opinion was proposed, others started looking into why that may not be true in certain cases. Instead, I suggest that for this dialogue, why don�t we start with the premise that whatever a person is saying is true. And respond to that person�s thoughts in an appreciative way. And if we have to bring in counter points, let�s do it with, �What you are saying is true, and�� instead of �What you are saying might be true, but��

... Good suggestion. Let's try to follow that.

� I was thinking about UI and it occurred to me that most UI design process has now become a science. Over the years, people have documented what works and what does not and have evolved detailed rules, methods etc to design a particular UI. So, if a rookie walks into a company, he cannot start designing something without training himself in the science of a particular design work.

� Well, it is true that design has become a science. And I think it is needed when it comes to iterative improvements of some existing design. When it comes to a new design, I think the process is more of an Art. Apple iPod and Google for example. Handheld music players and search engines existed before iPod and Google. But by thinking creatively, Apple and Google have shot up to number 1 positions. No existing science of music player design or search engine design would have helped in designing them.

�Yes, I agree that iterative improvements over an existing design are more of science and new designs are more of an Art.

� I think that at the actual time designing something, one does not say to oneself, �I am now switching on my science thinking� I think all our thoughts arise from and go through a single, integrated process that includes science and art at the same time.

� I guess we could say that in any good design process, the art and science aspects weave into each other.

... I sometimes get into a conflict between my left and right brain. For example, if I want to hang a large picture on the wall in my room, my right brain suggests that a certain place would be more aesthetically pleasing than other places. But my left brain immediately says that that place would be a problem for people walking beside it because they might hit their head on the large frame.

� I remember what my mom used to say: �Everything has a place and there is a place for everything.� I kind of agree with that because if a certain place is right for an object, doesn�t that place automatically become right for the object too?

� Well that depends on who is defining what is �right� � the left brain or the right brain!

� Look at China and India. I suppose China is more �organized� in many ways than India. But I believe that in spite of being a largely disorganized country, people in India are happier.

� Ok I have something deeper going on in my mind. Imagine a house that is designed to perfection - from the architecture to choice of objects to their placement etc. When I imagine myself walking into the place and living there, I suddenly ask myself, �What are all these things for? So what if I can find anything within a second? So what if I can move around easily inside the house? Am I supposed to be happy with my life because I have convenience, ease of use etc? Without clarity on some central purpose in life and without everything else aligning with that purpose, I would feel utterly bored even in the most well designed house. But if I have that clarity, I guess I would be happy even in a badly designed house. That clarity would help me navigate without much pain in any environment. I think any design (place, object, interaction�) must foremost help people identify and constantly keep in awareness a clear purpose. Everything about a place, object or interaction must revolve around the central purpose. If this can be done, I think the �right� design will spontaneously keep evolving. It may not be perfect at any given time, but it will be adequate consistently.

If you are designing something, how will you go about making the design help people identify and constantly keep in awareness the larger purpose within which that design exists?

Posted by Ragu at March 7, 2005 10:57 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.prasadkaipa.com/blog/mt-tb.cgi/21

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Art and Science of UI: