The Emotionality of Fuzzy Things

As you might be able to guess from the title, I've also been reading Emotional Design (Don Norman). Like with the other book, this was my second read-through. What I realized while reading this time around, is that this particular book is perhaps the most essential one for my research. Indeed, most of the things I have been writing about can be derived from what Norman presents in these pages.

Playful usability definitely builds upon the emotional side of human thought. It doesn't even pretend to be functionally optimal. Highly functional interfaces are effective. They take the shortest route. Playful interfaces on the other hand are more creative. Or, using the travel metaphor, they take the scenic route. Or maybe the route that is just more entertaining to drive. Really straight, long roads are effective. They are also really boring to drive, which is why I usually don't pick them. So today, I'll take a look at playful interfaces, through the lenses of the three levels of human thought presented in the book.

I guess before that, a really quick recap of the said levels is in order. For a more complete description, read the book. The three levels of human thought are visceral, behavioral and reflective. The first two are sub-conscious while the last one is conscious thought. Visceral level is the most basic input-output system built into us. It excels at giving out immediate responses. The behavioral level is where activity is performed. It handles any activity that doesn't require conscious thought to perform. While I'm writing this, the movements of my hands on the keyboard are controlled by the behavioral level, leaving my consciousness free to think ahead what I'll write next. And of course, that is what I'm doing on the reflective level. Here I am making decisions how to express myself and my ideas through this text.

Playful interfaces are by nature likely to be more novel than highly functional ones. Sure, functional interfaces can be decorated, but the methods of interaction follow convention. Playful or fuzzy interfaces can surprise the user with more than just visual decorations. At this point, we are clearly working on the visceral level. And I think it's really important to be affective here. It's the wow-effect, "hey, I wanna try that", that should be achieved. Applications and services need to advertise themselves, especially in interactive spaces where high personalization is not affordable (i.e. same services are generally offered for everyone). Often one glimpse at the UI is all you're ever going to get from your potential users, so that glimpse better bring them over. This kind of appeal is especially important to make people aware of services they didn't think they'd need.

As stated, playful interfaces are not even trying to compete in raw functionality. The argument goes: effectiveness can be achieved through enjoyable use, even if the actions themselves are slower. People are not machines, we get bored with uninteresting tasks and our minds wander away. This should not be big news to anyone, hopefully. Take a look at games. Games rarely provide the most effective means to reach a high level goal, which does indeed make them enjoyable. So, in the behavioral level, the aim for playful usability is to make high level goals more enjoyable to work towards. The means towards this end is to make individual tasks not necessarily optimized for speed, but optimized for fun instead.

Of course, making work-related tasks fun while retaining their original purpose is a hard one to tackle. If it was easy, we would most likely have it already. It requires a lot of lateral thinking. Especially in the domain of desktop applications, user interfaces are inside that same old ugly box. I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: that box needs to be tucked away for good. Thinking outside that box is not enough. We must find a new box altogether and then think outside that box. Or, preferably, a lot of boxes solely for the purpose of thinking outside them. Or, well, you get the idea. Just to put things in context, I have picked up the box labeled "game interfaces" and I'm trying to think outside that box.

I'm actually a bit of an optimist in the sense that I firmly believe that for playful interfaces, visceral appeal might be achieved as a side product of good behavioral appeal. At least I'd like to think that most things that are fun to do, also look so. Sure, I can come up with counter examples. However, at least in the beginning novelty is the other factor. Interfaces that are fun to use will most likely look very different from what people are used to, leading into curiosity. There lies a risk though. Control by gestures or speech for example can feel weird to some people. Especially if they have to do it in public. Talking on the phone is easy to accept. Talking to the phone is not.

Finally, we have the reflective level. I'd consider this to be even more important than the other two, but also harder to write about. Certainly, a good user experience is already achieved with enjoyable execution of tasks. On the reflective level, we want users to look back at the experience with positive feelings. Also, we need the user to feel good while using the interface. If we jump back to games, it simply doesn't matter how good playability a game has if it doesn't match the style or theme of the game. Therefore, it is important that a playful interface contributes to the overall experience of performing a higher level goal. And of course, how using the interface sits with the user's self-image.

Taking emotions into the equation raises a whole lot of things to consider when designing playful interaction. User experience is not a simple matter. Even in pure entertainment applications such as games, no one can tell exactly what needs to be done to ensure that ultimate playing experience. Sure, reading a book or ten about game design helps. Reading books on related topics helps more. But in the end, it all comes down to understanding your audience. Even then, sometimes you just have to break the rules, shake people up and bewilder them completely.

Making an experimental interface is easy. Making a successful experimental interface is not. That's what keeps researches like myself ticking.

The Design of Fuzzy Things

Another book-related post. This time I'm going to approach the topic of playful usability via The Design of Everyday Things (Don Norman). I don't think I this book needs any more recommendations, so let's just go ahead with some thoughts of my own*.

I'd like to start with the three models. There's designer's model, which is how the interface is designed to work. On the other end, the user's model, is how the user thinks the interface works. And in the middle is the system image, responsible for communicating how the interface works. In other words, the user's model is dependent on the system model. In fuzzy usability, the system image is intentionally non-obvious. The idea is not to directly communicate the workings of the system but rather present an interface that raises curiosity and allows the user to discover the workings. By obscuring knowledge we make it more desirable to attain.

My hypothesis for the benefits is that interfaces constructed this way are easier to learn. In a typical desktop interface such as the Firefox web browser I'm currently looking at, the user is immediately presented with a lot of actions. Wizards are often used to guide beginners. The downside is that wizards are separate interfaces for doing specific tasks and do not teach the user to use the program's interface. In a purposefully obscured interface, it is easy to start by presenting the most basic of tasks and reveal advanced features when the user "levels up". The application can reveal the presence of features when they become relevant.

We can think of interfaces separated into zones. Anything the user is already familiar with is in the safe zone, and the message is clear "you know these things, it is safe to work with them". On the borders of the safe zone, there is the uncertain zone. The user has an idea of what is there, and it's kind of saying "you might feel uncomfortable here, but these things can make you more powerful". Finally, there is the great unknown, beyond the uncertain zone. When the application realizes that the user is doing something that could be done better with an advanced feature, it can assign quests, sending the user to explore a particular uncertain zone or even an unknown zone. If the user wishes to find a particular feature, the help system can provide directions of how to get to that feature.

Unsurprisingly, this bears high similarity with playing openworld or sandbox games like Grand Theft Auto. The player can explore quite freely, discovering new areas progressively while learning new skills. But when the player wishes to get on with the story, there are certain things that are required, and hence the game sends the player on quests to meet these requirements. Add rewards for mastering new skills. One further way to think of this comparison is that of task. In a game, the task is to complete the story. In an application, the task is to complete some external goal. Typically the difference between these two tasks is their definer: in a game, the task is defined by its designer while in an application the task is defined by the user. The point remains the same though: why shouldn't the user/player have fun while learning the skills required to complete the task?

In terms of affordances, safe zones afford safe using of features with predictable outcomes; uncertain zones afford experimentation with features; unknown zones afford exploration. Restrictions can also be used by requiring certain features to be in the safe zone before the user is allowed to use particular advanced features. This will ensure that the user has grasped some important basic concept before trying to use a feature that heavily builds upon that concept. The restriction also comes quite naturally - the user needs to traverse through the prerequired features on his way towards the advanced feature.

Implementing an interface that conforms to this model should be an interesting task. Some key considerations in functionality are to ensure that 1) the safe zone really is safe and 2) the uncertain zone clearly supports experimentation. Predictability is key in the first consideration, while proper undo support is key in the second. Another implementation question is analysing user actions in a way that the application can decide when it is appropriate to advertise a feature.

* Similar thoughts can be encountered in several HCI articles, and I'll return to them later. Difficulty regulation is a good key word if you're looking for one.

Innovative Interaction Concepts - part 5: thINK

This is the fifth post in a series describing student presentations that we were invited to see and comment during the II City project meeting.

The fifth presentation, given by Deividas Djuozulynas and Jill Pearson, was most similar to the second one (I'm seeing a pattern here!) in that it also introduced an actual user interface concept. Also, much like the second presentation, the interface concept is kind of fuzzy, but whereas the second presentation was based on discovery, Deividas and Jill's concept is based on inaccurate control and the idea that just using an interface can be fun, regardless of actual content. So, let's go through the key points of the presentation and proceed from there as usual.

thINK is a blowing based interface, so instead of using physical touching, the interface is instead used with air. The key idea here is that blowing is not an exact science, so it might be fun to just try to navigate around the user interface ("can I get to that icon before I run out of breath?"). Also, creating art in this way can lead to surprising results. Just pick a color and start blowing, then see where it takes you. Deividas and Jill also presented several other ways of using thINK, but for the purposes of this blog, let's see what I can come up with.

Using blowing as a method of control could be easily used as a basis for a game or several. Of course, it's also easy to think of many existing games where this could be used to improve the gameplay experience, or at least make it different. How to use your breath could become another tactical dimension, although perhaps players of blowing instruments might have an unfair advantage here, but then again, maybe they've deserved it (and hey, maybe the game could be used for breathing training!). However, I want to take the discussion up to a more abstract level once again.

The general idea here is uncertainty of control, and the idea that sometimes you may need to put in a little effort to be able to use a certain service. Of course, this would be disastrous for office work and such that needs to be efficient, but for applications that are mostly entertaining in nature, why not? Getting to use some specific applications could be an achievement that requires some practice, which is actually an interesting way to increase the value of services. Again, we can see this in games: many games in various genres have side missions that are much more difficult than what you have to face in the main game, and the reward for beating the ultimate side quest is, in the end, just the feeling of achievement.

Of course, not all people want to master their games to this level. Even I, fanatic fan of difficult side quests, no longer have the time to play all my games thoroughly. I find this sad, but I digress. So, people definitely do play these difficult tasks, train themselves or their avatars in the game world until they are up to the task, then conquer the achievement. So, what if one day we could brag to our friends "hey guys, I mastered that thINK interface, I was able to get to use ReallyCoolApplication!". The application itself need not be even that cool in itself, just the fact that it's rare makes it cool, because not all people have the will to reach it. Of course it also should not be that crucial or important, because then people would feel compelled to practice, or be "left out".

Uncertain control in games has been done here and there (drunk driving in Grand Theft Auto 4 springs to mind immediately), so it's not exactly new but I can't currently recall any game that has a game mechanic solely based on it, but then again, I've been mostly playing very traditional games and kept up with indie games mostly by reading games magazines (which is something my studies force me to change). I think the idea here is mostly that, the game provides an additional challenge. Not only does the player need to reach certain goal, but also constantly put effort so that he retains an acceptable amount of comfort. Some more difficult parts might need more careful focus, while easier parts could be more relaxed. Visiting the blowing concept quickly, imagine running out of breath on a critical moment.

So what I was able to take home from Deividas and Jill's presentation can be summarized as follows: in entertainment interfaces, the ease of use might not always lead to the best user experience, and uncertainty and certain degree of lack of control might actually be great fun. This is another fuzzy concept, meaning I might be involved in researching it further with the II City project.

Innovative Interaction Concepts - part 2: City Chills

This is the second post in a series describing student presentations that we were invited to see and comment during the II City project meeting.

The second presentation, by Mark Cosgrave and Ulla Mathaldi, was a more concrete interaction concept. Their idea combined an interesting user interface and an interesting way for finding new places in the city. They also introduced an interesting way of attracting a user to the screen by having the screen acknowledge the user's physical presence. The actual idea is built around fuzzy usability, where the user is not presented with all the options, but kind of discovers them one at a time in an interactive way. The service in their example is a way of navigating the city using the city soundscape to find places that are pleasing to the user.

I think Mark and Ulla's concept has three different things going on, all of them interesting on their own right. So let's do the engineering thing and pick this project apart (forgive me my barbaric manners, I just can't resist my inner engineer). The first interesting point in the above description is how the user is attracted to the screen in the first place. If we think of this in a more abstract way, the screen is concretely showing that it notices the person's presence and identifies with the potential user. We want to be acknowledged by our peers, and I would go as far to say this goes for machines as well.

I'll sidetrack briefly to talk about last.fm. I guess most people know it by now, but anyway, it's a service that tracks what music you play on your computer (or any other music player that can send information to their servers) and keeps statistics for you. The service doesn't require much from the user. You register once, and enable scrobbling. When you visit the site, it identifies a part of you - the music you listen to - and shows content that is relevant for you, like artist recommendations. It's perhaps not the best example, but I think it somehow does show how this automatic service clearly notices the user. Generally speaking, when our computers or web sites show us interesting or relevant information without specifically asking for it, we feel acknowledged.

In the coming age of interactive spaces, it will be increasingly more important to attract users to services that are relevant to their interests, because there are going to be so many services, and if people have to actually explore all the available options, they will be too intimidated to even try. The fuzzy usability idea is actually kind of related to this. It is, simply, a user interface where everything is not visible to the user at start. It inspires exploration and I think it's an interesting way of finding new services. If I have some twenty plus icons on my screen, I'm too intimidated by the sheer amount figure out what can I do with them. But if I just start from one point, and then reveal more based on what I see, it's more like "hey, I wonder what's here".

So instead of being hit in the face with the sledge hammer of twenty icons, I start to discover options by exploring, one at a time. When I find something interesting, I can immediately try it out, and maybe continue exploring the screen later. This is actually a bit like how games teach us to play them. New options are introduced gradually, so at the beginning we are taught just the basics to get started on playing. Then, when we encounter new situations, then the relevant options are revealed to us and we can immediately see how they could be useful. (sidenote: I just finished reading an interesting book by James Paul Gee about how games teach us, and I'll get back to that subject in a later post).

I think it's fairly obvious that this kind of interface concept has applications in game design as well. It has some small similarities with fog of war in strategy games, but as a concept it's much stronger. Just like fog of war, in fuzzy interaction like this the screen doesn't need to stay revealed permanently, but it can slowly fade out the oldest revealed parts. The general idea is that game concepts would revolve around the idea of revealing only parts of the screen at any given time. My first intuition would be to think of puzzle game mechanics around this concept, but I'm sure there will be lots of other possibilities when proper thought is given to the idea.

The third concept here is the idea of navigating a city based on sounds. It is in fact an interesting concept, because sound strongly affects the atmosphere. Say I want to look for some place where I can just relax for a while. I could just pick some park and hope it's not full of noisy kids. But clearly it's much better if I can explore the city as a soundscape. This also fits the theme of exploration and discovery. I just listen to sounds from some abstract presentation, and when I hear something interesting, I can ask for guidance to get there.

It would also be curious if instead of showing the place on a map, I could just get audio instructions on my mobile phone. This brings this new "I wonder where this is taking me" aspect to finding places. It would also break the usual way of moving around where we first decide where we are going and then just figure out how to get there. By following the soundscape like this, I think we would more often get to places where we didn't mean to go to, but afterwards are really glad that we went there anyway. Again, this is an idea that can be used in games, especially massive online games. The player could just ask the game to show them to a place that fulfills certain criteria and then end up in some place that they've never seen before.

It looks like Mark and Ulla's presentation turned out to be an excellent lesson in the joy of discovery. Just to remind you, this was a fifteen minute presentation by two students (although, I'm sure lots and lots of work went to actually preparing it!), and let me assure you that, once again, this post is just a fragment of all the discussion that was and most likely will be inspired by it. We also found this kind of fuzzy interface as a potential research subject for II City, so perhaps there will be more concrete work on it in the future.