Perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of working with technology occurs when technology doesn't behave the way we expect. Using a broad definition, this can apply to any device we interact with, whether an appliance, a vehicle, consumer electronics, or even something as basic as a door or a window. For those of us who remember the 80s, there were an abundance of jokes about how to program a VCR (video cassette recorder, in case you forgot). Why was something as seemingly simple as telling a device when to record a TV show so complex? For fun I pulled out an old VCR user's manual and found the instructions for recording a show. The instructions list 17 steps to record a TV show! Today, my Windows Media Center is a two-step operation: select the program in the channel listings and click the record button. What was different about the VCR of the 80s and the TiVo of today? Two key things have changed since then: the Internet and the user interface. Yesterday's technology was not "connected" in the way devices are today. Unlike today's Internet-connected devices, the VCR had no way of knowing the TV schedule. Equally important though, we have seen a revolution in the development of the user interface moving from a largely button-driven interface to a menu-driven interface.
What is a user interface? Per Wikipedia, a user interface is the system by which people (users) interact with a machine. We are challenged by these user interfaces every day; we are surrounded by devices that we have to conquer. In "The Design of Everyday Things" Don Norman argues that the objects with which we interact should signal to the user how they should be used. If an object requires a user manual, then the designer has failed to make it user friendly. Doors shouldn't have to say "Push" or "Pull"—users should be able to determine whether they push or pull simply by looking at the door. The technology should be intuitive and signal to us how we should interact with it; and recently, some technology has started to live up to this expectation. For instance, few of us have ever opened a user manual (if one even exists) for Facebook. My two-year old is a master at navigating my iPad, but he cannot read and had never been instructed on how to use it. He just figured it out by himself because the 
user interface was intuitive. Yet, much technology still surrounds us which is not friendly and which sometimes requires us to read a book in order to conquer it. Why is that so?
At Handel we design new user interfaces every day. We strive to anticipate how our customers will use them and thus work to make every interface easy and intuitive. In doing so, we have certain design standards that we follow. Most of the time, we believe we get it right, but sometimes we don't.
What is the result/cost of a poorly designed user interface? Frustration is certainly one, and perhaps the one felt the most by the end user. A bigger cost, however, is lost time. For example, let’s take a look at using a software application for a new-client intake process within the social services realm. This process may take anywhere from 10-to-20 minutes on average to document in a typical case management system. Let's say a well-designed user interface allows a trained case worker to complete the process in 5 minutes, whereas a poorly designed interface takes on average 20 minutes. Fifteen minutes may not seem like a big deal, but what if this agency does 3000 intakes per year? At 15 minutes extra time per intake, we are talking about 45,000 minutes (750 hours) of wasted time each year. Because everything we do at Handel has this type of magnitudinal repercussion, we are spending our time up-front making sure we design the most efficient and easy-to-use user interfaces for our clients.
So why is it that there is so much technology out there that has poorly designed user interfaces? The short answer is that usually the interface is not designed by the same people who are going to use it. Like everything in life, the answer is probably a bit more complicated than that, but I believe that is the main reason in a lot of cases. Take our industry as an example. We design software for social workers. They are not usually software engineers and our software engineers are not social workers. So frequently when we set about to replace a software system for an agency, we hear the same story 9 times out of 10 that they only used 10% of the functionality of their old software because the rest didn't meet their needs. Obviously, at Handel we are not guilt-free in this area either. Over the years we have made our share of poorly designed user interfaces; but I believe after doing it for so long, we have now found the optimal balanced approach to how we meet our customers needs.
An unfortunate choice of an icon made a lot of users of this system believe that the number 15 (a random number chosen to represent a calendar icon) was the number of TANF months left for every client in the system....
And therein, I believe, is the right answer. The best user interfaces come from a fine balance between those who are building the system and those who are using the system. There is general agreement that a great deal of Apple's success comes from creating products that are both very attractive to look at and also very easy to use. Apple's success was in no small part due to Steve Jobs’ relentless quest for perfection. Steve, along with lead designer Jony Ive, had incredibly high standards for product design and product functionality. In Walter Isachson's biography on Jobs there is a story about the calculator that shipped with the first Mac. The software engineer creating the calculator became so frustrated by continual rejections from Jobs (lines were too wide, too narrow, etc.) that he (partially as a joke) created the "Steve Jobs Calculator Construction Kit." The “Kit” was to allow Jobs to sit down and design his own look for the calculator. According to the story, within 15 minutes Jobs designed the calculator that eventually shipped with the Mac and that remained unchanged for the next 15 years.
In that story I believe we find an interesting learning experience. Give the people who know best how the technology needs to work, the tools that can make it work that way. At Apple the engineer who was writing the software code was unable to see what Steve Jobs wanted. However, when he created a tool and put it into his hands, Jobs was able to design exactly what he wanted and it turned out to be the "right" design. This is what we are doing at Handel. Here we have, in essence, two tiers of engineers. The software engineers develop the RiteTrack platform and also tools which allow our customer solution engineers to create and implement the best solutions for our customers. While the software engineers work on the more abstract level, the customer solution teams are entrenched with our customers and spend an excessive amount of time learning the customers’ needs through observations, joint application development (JAD) sessions, and writing design documents (the blueprints, if you like). By the time the customer signs off on the design document, we have a very clear idea of what the solution needs to look like and how it needs to work. Using the RiteTrack platform, our customer solution engineers can quickly bring to market solutions that meet our customers’ needs to a very exact standard.
I am optimistic that the future of user interface design is one in which the end-user has more saying. A future where we have better balance between those who design the technology and those who use it. With the advent of the 99 cent app, I believe we are starting to see how this may become a more democratized process. With thousands of apps to choose from on the Apple, Android, and other app stores, users have a lot of choice. Equally important, users have a voice. When I am faced with 5 different apps that generally claim to do the same things I usually go with the one that has the highest user rating. Companies cannot ignore this type of feedback, and, I believe, those who take this feedback to heart are those who in the end are the most successful. The end-result is a world of apps that have become much more user friendly. With regards to hardware we do not quite have the same type of flexibility as we do with software. However, even without the app-store equivalent for hardware, social media in the form of user reviews have made it much easier to identify the best product for our needs. No longer do I read product reviews written by a professional reviewer. Before I buy a new piece of hardware I read the reviews written by other people who have purchased the same product. While I still have frequent encounters with poorly designed user interfaces I believe the future looks bright as the communication between design and consumer is getting better and better. For comic relief, I have included a few of my recent encounters with poorly designed GUIs below.
As we always strive to learn, I would love to hear from you on some of your favorite "GUI-challenged" stories. Send me an e-mail, even@handelit.com.
Design Challenges
Even some of the largest technology companies have a hard time getting their technology right some times. Here are a few examples that have frustrated me recently...
Every time I plug my iPhone into my car stereo I get this annoying message. Yes, it is just one click, but after getting this warning every day for a year I am sure it adds up to a few minutes. Yes Apple, I know that my car stereo doesn't support charging of my new iPhone. Just give me an option to check "Please don't give me this message again."
When we launch Netflix on our Sony Blu Ray player the following prompt shows after Netflix is loaded. Why is this extra step confirming that "the Internet content is ready" necessary? It won't continue to Netflix until you click 'Close' to acknowledge this. Sony, just take me to Netflix next time, OK?
Which is the ON/OFF button that turns the TV on and off? Hint: It is not the button that says ON/OFF. Maybe Samsung made the power button red to avoid this type of confusion?