Skteching, Idea Logs and Storyboarding
From IEOR 170 Spring 2007
Individual Assignment 1 is released, due 1/31/2007
Readings
- Cognetics and the Locus of Attention. Jeff Raskin,The Humane Interfaces, Chapter 2. (please check the in-class handouts for username/password associated with restricted materials)
- Meanings, Modes, Monotony and Myths. Jeff Raskin: The Humane Interfaces, Chapter 3.
Discussions
Please post your critiques/comments on the required readings below. Note - Please put a whole line == ~~~~ == at the beginning of your submitted critique, so the wiki system will index, sign and date your submission automatically.
Note
For students who have trouble in submitting their comments, please check this guide on edit conflicts.
[edit] Patrick Liu 19:11, 23 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
I found that the cognitive conscious and cognitive unconscious explanations in this article were very interesting and true. I have experienced cases were my memory brought up a moment of happiness and my cognitive unconscious brought up a tiny bit of that feeling of happiness to my cognitive conscious. There have also been times where I listen to specific music and my cognitive unconscious would bring up memories of the past of when I was listening to that specific song. I could relate a lot to the section were the author talks about borderline cases, when sometimes I have a person’s name at the “tip of my tongue,” but I can not seem to remember it. But then other times I remember the person’s name perfectly. I also enjoyed how the author explained the automaticity of the locus of attention. I agree that if something is automatic to me, then I unconsciously am capable of performing that task.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths"
Personally I found this article to have no “meaning” and a lot of "monotony." I find it obvious that many interface users can be confused when trying to get accustomed to new programs. At first glance I could empathize how one could get confused by the notation of “Control + .” But to go to the distance of specifiying s ↓ s ↑ to represent typing the letter “s” seems a bit far fetched to me. I can also understand how people were confused about the screen status being locked or not, but again I feel that if people used the equipment long enough they have the ability to adapt. Although I do realize this class is about design and human factors, the definition of modes and how they affect users in a negative way seems contraversial to me. Preferences and usability are major issues in some cases, but I doubt in all cases are they as dreadful as the author has described them to be. One thing I do agree with the author though is that “well-designed and humane interface does not have to be split into beginner and expert subsystems.” I understand this fact because I too was once a beginner when it came to basic programs such as word processors, but not until I became adept at using those programs did I realize how complex the program actually was.
[edit] Ryan Shelby 16:44, 23 January 2007 (PST)
Chapter 2
This article caused me to think about how I use various items to perform my daily tasks and how my attention can be shifted suddenly. The article explained that humans have only one locus of attention which can greatly aid or hinder a human in performing their respective tasks. A single locus of attention allows a person to focus the majority of their efforts on completing a single task correctly, but such a strong locus can also cause a person to ignore a potentially disastrous event in his/her surroundings. After reading this article, I realized that I would be able to better complete some of my tasks if my devices were designed so that they focused my talents on just a single task. I also thought that it was really helpful that the author use simple examples such as thinking about the last letter in your name to demonstrate his points about consciousness and unconsciousness. These examples allowed me to take his theories and apply in my everyday life in order to understand his rationale behind these theories.
Chapter 3
The author makes a valid point that modes have caused users to experience frustration with their devices from time to time. However, I disagree with the author’s statement that preference settings should be removed. At the time of his publication, no studies showed the positive or negative effects of having a preference option upon a user’s work output. People don’t like to be told what one can and cannot do; people especially hate it when a machine tries to dictate or restrict their actions. Consumers generally prefer to have some degree of control over the way they interact with their devices. Modes become a problem when a user is not aware of which mode is currently active and what responses that mode will have to certain gestures. Elimination of all modes from devices is highly unlikely. Instead, efforts should be placed upon designing devices that reduce user confusion as to which mode is active or inactive and allows user to change easily between a variety of modes if they so desire.
[edit] Andrew prasetyo 21:55, 23 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” This article explores the interaction between human psychological thoughts with machine/computer from cognitive/psychology point of view. The lesson learned from the article is that when we design a product, it should comply with human habitual activity. The author experience with Microsoft Word and Macintosh word processor is a good example why products should have some commonality that agrees with user’s habits. I also like the example of aircraft accident that killed 101 people. This example shows how human-machine interaction has failed. A designer should understand the way people think and how people react in different conditions; doing so will prevent accidents from happening in the future.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth” This article is similar to the previous one (assigned for Monday) since it puts emphasis on how a design of the product should be user-driven and based mainly on the interaction between the users and the machine. I found this article is interesting because, sometimes, even a useful, innovative product fails to satisfy the customers just because it has too complicated functions or ambiguous directions. It is true, however, that people can eventually adapt to the complications and ambiguity. I also like this article because the author has included many good examples of good and bad product design, such as: SONY clock radio, Windows operating system, and the Tektronix Oscilloscope. However, I somehow found the notation of using arrows is a lot more confusing than the use of “Control +.”.
[edit] Onyi Lam 22:04, 23 January 2007 (PST)
This article explores some ideas that I found very interesting: cognetic consciousness and unconsciousness. The example that Raskin raised to illustrate this concept was a simple question: What is the last character in your first name? Up until I read that, I was not at all paying attention to is and thus, as Raskin defined it, unconscious. People are also generally not aware of light until it is switched on/off. This example furthers the idea that unless something triggers to change your perception, you are unaware of its existence. Another focus of this article is the lotus of attention. Raskin explains that it is best to have only one lotus of attention because experiments show that human are unable to attend to multiple simultaneous stimuli. So when are designing our products, we should pay attention to this concepts such that the users can develop habitual behaviours on our products.
The first part of this article talks about the arrangement of keystrokes and i think it's refreshing to read froam a technical perspective. While there are a lot of jargons in the article, it is still interesting to about the argument that letting the users to customize their interface may not be lead to optimal settings when the overall trend in product design right not is personalization. It's also nice to read how different products (such as the BART ticketing maching) failed to make it because of their poorly designed interface. They serve as a very good counter-examples. In the article, Raskin also suggests that visibility and affordance to be the 2 main criteria that we should keep in mind when designing an interface.
[edit] Michael Toulouse 22:59, 23 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
The beginning of the chapter seems to take a practical bent, in which the author warns against trying to model the workings of the brain with imperfect metaphors, and instead just working empirically. It also distinguishes between the conscious and unconscious in this way. I agree with the article in that we should strive for interfaces which remain mostly in the unconscious, so that the user does not have to constantly focus their attention, and can improve with use. The author's assertion that you can do many things unconsciously but only one thing consciously without "interference" is an interesting insight, and there are many interesting possible exploitations of this that are brought up. A somewhat denser read than previously, but interesting material.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth”
The section on modes was especially interesting, as I've run into similar confusions before on whether something is on or off when there is no way to tell from the actual device. Again, like with the previous chapter, various solutions are offered for mode errors, but the tradeoff between preventing unconscious errors and interrupting the unconscious flow of use is still present. The next section goes into the dangers of letting users customize too much, as that encourages more modal errors. The somewhat tongue-in-cheek mention that a modeless interface with only one way to do something would create a (profitable) dependence on that interface was an interesting conclusion.
[edit] Jordan Blum 23:09, 23 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
The author's premise in writing this article, which I think is pretty interesting, is that earlier machine inventions have been designed to interact with thier users physically. To this end, these inventions have been on the whole successful since their designers have a pretty good understanding of ergonomics. However, today, many inventions are designed to work with thier users intellectually rather than physically. The author maintains that in order for these new machinese to function well, an "ergonomics of the mind," what the author calls cognetics, must be developed. Designers, therefore, should understand the cognetive processes of their users, the way they think and act, in order to ensure that their designs will work successfully. If designers fail to do this, the author argues, accidents can occur. He cites an incident in which 100+ people were killed in a plane crash due to a poor interface design which was not compatible with its users. Another ideas that the author discusses which I think is intersting is the ideas of hbit formation and automatic actions. The author argues that habit formation is inevitable when people perform a certain task repeatedly. Interfaces, therefore, should be designed to take advantage of this habit formation, so that interfaces are more intuitive and easy to use. The author cites the example of Microsoft and Macintosh word processing programs as an example.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth"
This article opens with a discussion on modes. The author argues that because a certain gesture is interpreted differently depending on what made the machine is in, it can be difficult for users to operate the machine accurately, causing confusion and frustration. The author cites the example of the RPV planes, whose contols change depending on the mode the machine is in. I completely agree with the author on this point: interfaces would be much easier to use if a given gesture was always interpreted the same way. However, when you have a lot of different commands, and only one gesture per command, it would seem like there would be a lot more gestures to memorize. As a potential solution, the author raises the idea that interfaces can be customized, so that each user will be better able to interact with the machine. However, the author argues that this can ofen lead to more confusion, as these changes may work well locally, but not globally. It is better for designers to design the interface more intuitively in the first place. This last claim seems a little strange to me. While I see where the author is coming from, I think that some level of customization is beneficial. For example, I use AutoCAD a lot, and the ability to customize hot keys makes it much easier for me to use.
[edit] Esha Datta 23:29, 23 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
Before reading this article, I had never considered the importance of understanding the human process of thinking when creating interfaces. The sections on conscious and unconscious thought and habit forming were also very interesting. I think the point that constant warning messages are ineffectual if they are always a constant part of a procedure is very true. I also thought it was interesting that it seems like ergonomic issues are usually considered in design, but cognetic issues are often overlooked.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth"
The design suggestions in this chapter were all interesting, though I am not sure that I agree with all of them. I think that it definitely makes sense to avoid modes in interface design. The oven and microwave system in my house is based on a mode system and I have never been able to figure it out because the button functions change depending on whether you are in bake, preheat, or microwave mode. While perhaps it makes sense not to make different interfaces for different classes of users, I do think that it makes sense to have different interfaces for different situations. For example, I think that the choice of basic and advanced search in the library catalog website is very helpful. I also do not completely agree with the author's view of customizable interfaces. I think it is useful to let users have some amount of control so that they can keep the tools they use most often close at hand. There can always be a well designed default as well, but it is nice to be able to personalize an interface as well.
[edit] Timothy Manglicmot 23:30, 23 January 2007 (PST)
[edit] Cognetics and the Locus of Attention
The Human Interface chapter provides an interesting framework for designing interfaces while taking the human conscious and unconscious mind into account. The locus of attention (the site a human is focused on) is what a user will have in their conscious mind and anything else is in their unconscious mind; this fact is a key concept to incorporating human-cognitive behavior in design. I thought it was especially interesting how a designer can take advantage of steps in his or her design where a user repeats the process so much it becomes automatic. In several of the computer programs I use many of the steps have become automatic over time; by designing steps to be automatic I have saved a lot of time and have become more efficient (thanks to the designers). Another appealing aspect of the chapter is the way designers can take advantage of their users only having one locus of attention. For example, if a user is immersed in typing on his or her word processor, the designer can take advantage of their focus on word processing by having an automatic-spell checker check his or her work. It is very intriguing learning about the ways designers can exploit human locus’s of attention. I enjoyed reading this chapter and I hope I can use its ideas in my future designs.
[edit] Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth
This chapter offers an idea learned earlier in the course of how desgns should be based on the user. It reinforces the idea that in order for a good design to suceed it must be easy and straight forward for the user to use, otherwise often times it will never suceed despite clever innovations or advances. In some cases though, the user has no choice but to adapt to the technology due to any number of circumstances (e.g. few alternatives) . Also, another intersting part of this chapter was how customization can lead to errors due to unconcious activity.
[edit] Christopher Ling 01:01, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
This article made me think differently about how the conscious relates to the unconscious. I enjoyed all the examples that were used to show the reader the numerous ways that we can switch from one state to the other, such as you are not conscious of the last letter of your first name until someone asks you. Another section that I found interesting was the topic concerning the singularity in our attention and how the term attention is applied. I was not conscious of the fact that unwanted attention is one of the few forms that attention is not used in a singular form.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth"
While the previous article laid out various difficulties and concerns in discussing the conscious and unconscious, this article accurately discussed important features that must be considered in product design. For example, it was interesting how the author described how even a checkbox for a locked or unlocked item could be confusing to users. However, I think there is also the case where product design can be too descriptive and complex a user to understand, thus making a poor design. But there can also be fairly complex products, such as the Sony short-wave radio, that can be easy to understand and use. While the previous article layed out various difficulte
[edit] Rakesh Vij 03:48, 24 January 2007 (PST)
Cognetics and the Locus of Attention: This article brings up a very important point. It discusses that mechanically things are made quite ergonomically, but that we must master the ergonomics of the mind in order to design great interfaces. Furthermore the article points out that we are often blind to our own mental limits, and that we must rely on careful experiments and observations to conquer this need. In fact this art is called cognetics, and in its study both the conscious and unconscious actions are observed. The cognitive unconscious is a place where information you don't access daily is stored. The reading discusses the many actions that cause the human brain to shift something from unconscious to the conscious mind. The locus of attention is the term that is given to the things that surround a human and actively become part of the conscious mind. The reading tells that in order to avoid forming a habit or doing something automatically it must be made the locus of attention. The final point that is made is that the single locus of attention should be exploited and designers should make the most of this. The author does a good job of using examples to express the concepts, the Canon Cat and Airplane examples especially helped me understand this somewhat abstract subject.
Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth: This chapter continues the discussion that the previous reading began. Specifically the reading goes into discussion about the harmful affects of having modes in interface design. First the reading discusses and explains what exactly constitutes a mode. The main problems that are discussed about modes are that they are a source of error, cause confusion, unnecessary restrictions and complexity. Similarly the author discusses toggles and how they are confusing. The author once again gives an example of how eliminating modes results in preventing aircraft crashes. The author also gets into monotony and discusses the pitfalls of having various ways of accomplishing the same task. He mentions Windows and Macintosh fall into this pit, and discusses the modeless art of monotony. Lastly the author discusses the myth of the beginner-expert dichotomy and the designers erroneous desire to want to make various forms of the interface with simplified controls. In summation both readings have further solidified that it is very important to understand users not from just a physical approach but also a congetic and mental standpoint. Also the underlying message has been to minimize complexity especially in the form of modes and redundant gestures. I really enjoyed these reading as the examples helped me thoroughly grasp the concept at hand.
[edit] Monica Tanza 08:50, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention" This chapter was somewhat interesting and while it made many points about human’s cognitive abilities, the application to design was mentioned but never closely analyzed. The discussion I found most interesting was the part about confirming permanent actions, such as deletions. I agreed that having screens pop up rarely make one stop and think because we have developed an automatic response to such screens. It makes one wonder what would be an effective method for actual confirmation on a task, one that denies the user the ability to develop an automatic response. When reading this article, I couldn’t help but wonder if the little interjections (like the story about the airplane) where there to prove some point about switching locus, as the author would continue just where he left off at the end of those stories.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony and Myths" This chapter attempted to apply the theories on human’s cognitive ability to designing user interface. One problem I had with the reading was that it was so focused on user interface; its ideas do not translate well to other types of design. This made it very insignificant for someone like me who has no desire to create computer programs. The only things I found of much interest were the examples of current technologies. The section on BART was amusing; the interface has changed since this book was written, yet I have noticed there is still a level of frustration with users (I have not studied this enough to notice the cause). I also felt the part about the autopilot with five options that mirrors an autopilot that pilots were trained on was an example of following the plagiarizing step (reuse what users know) of Monday’s reading. However, this author seemed against the idea.
[edit] Tracy yang 10:03, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attraction”
The human-machine interface is ever-changing. Despite even the most thorough research and design development, solutions to problems pertaining to the realms between conscious and unconscious thought are at most temporarily successful. For example, the author of this article cites the example of the three pilots who paid so much attention to changing a light bulb that they failed to realize they were jeopardizing their lives. Examples such as this one appear throughout the chapter, and are a perfect example of the growing complications designers face today. Specifically, “…you cannot prevent the user from establishing a habit…without reestablishing the decision as the center of the locus…” (22). Thus, the newly developed habit bring an onslaught of new decisions to make during the design process.
I feel this article made some very solid points on design theory. First, solutions to problems regarding technology are almost always temporary. Warnings, alters, bells, buzzers, and the like, become automatic and expected annoyances after continued usage. Also, the ensuing solutions to newly developed problems are increasingly complex. For instance, humans develop habits to confirm computer warnings automatically without stopping to really make the choice.
One thing I did not like about the article was that it personifies the mind, recording approximately how long it has to live, how it will die, and how its rebirth would occur. The author should give the human mind a little more credit; the mind is capable of amazing things when it is forced to do so. No doubt the first men on Earth knew how to multitask successfully; either learn that or die of starvation.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth"
In this chapter Raskin explores some problems and solutions related to modular interface designs. According to him the different available interpretations of modes is the source of many miscommunications, malfunctions, and frustrations. Citing the example of toggle buttons, users frequently become confused between the lock and unlock buttons in some programs. The author feels that “an interface that is both modeless and, insofar as possible, monotonous…would be extraordinately pleasant to use” (68).
I feel this article is completely ridiculous. True, using modes can sometimes be confusing—but they are necessary. Imagine how ludicrously enormous those RPV plane remotes would be if there was a different button for every single action. Moreover, I feel the argument is dated, for the increasing complexities in design programs require the use of keyboard shortcuts. If a 3D rendering program merely listed all its actions without keyboard shortcuts, it would take forever to toggle through the lists and select the Line command, rather than just hitting the letter “l”. However, the biggest issue that I have with the piece is that the author blames modes as the source of confusion, when (in my opinion) it is really a problem with consistency between programs. This issue is already being addressed in programs today; Control Z is the best thing ever.
[edit] Michael Lovejoy 09:57, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attraction”
This was a decent article, but a little too wordy. It had unnecessarily long-winded descriptions and definitions. I felt that it really didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know – it just gave everything I knew different wording and definitions. The examples were very interesting and useful in understanding the concepts. The most important concepts presented were that of locus of attention and that we must design interfaces that take advantage of habit development and to allow users to develop habits that will help their work. I strongly disagree with the author’s assertion that habit formation will inherently make warnings about permanently deleting something pointless. I do agree that interfaces should simply be designed so that you can recover something you delete, but whenever I get a warning about permanently deleting something, I heed that warning and make sure it is exactly what I want to get rid of. I also disagree with the author’s belief that web browsers should automatically open to the last website viewed. If I left that website and closed the browser, then most likely I am done with it and do not need to go back to it again. Overall, the article could have been summarized in only a couple pages and I would understand just as much about consciousness and loci of attention.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth"
I liked this chapter much more than the previous. Despite its length, it was more practical and less theoretical. I liked the many varying examples from all different types of user interfaces, such as computers, AutoCAD, remote-piloted vehicles, oscilloscopes, BART, and more. I disagree with the author’s assumption that you cannot tell if a flashlight is on simply by feel. Usually push-buttons on flashlights have a different feel when they are activated – the button will be depressed, and it is fairly easy to tell. Also, if you can’t see, you don’t really have much use for a flashlight (and it’s not too hard to tell if your duffel bag is lit up or not). I did, however, like the mention of Asimov’s first law of robotics, which seemed very applicable to the chapter. I also liked the comparison of an addictive product to illicit drugs. The modelessness and monotony of a product should become habitual and addictive. Selling this addictive product is also very profitable. Overall, this chapter had many more realistic examples and ideas on user interfaces, and is much more interesting than the previous chapter.
[edit] Justin Hsu 10:10, 24 January 2007 (PST)
[edit] Cognetics and the Locus of Attention
The article “Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” did a good job of illustrating the importance of understanding human thought tendencies when designing a product. I like how they used examples to illustrate concepts like the cognitive unconscious. One of the main points of the article was that humans only have one locus of attention at any given time. Before the article, I would have severely overestimated how much a human could process at any given time. I would have also thought that taking cognetics into consideration would only consist of make designs “intuitive” or “obvious.” But the example involving the Canon Cat and how it utilized old displays to “mask” time delays by tricking the user into thinking that data had loaded instantaneously demonstrates a much deeper understanding of human psychology. It was interesting how the article criticized how operating systems forced the user to navigate back to their work rather than resuming their last task because most of today’s operating systems have not adopted this.
[edit] Meanings, Modes, Monotony and Myths
The article “Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths” raised some interesting points about major design flaws in current products and some possible solutions that could be used to fixed them. Most of his ideas for improvement I agreed with. However, some of his proposed solutions seemed quite cumbersome. For instance, his proposed notation involving arrows that indicated when the user should hold and release a given key seemed too involved to be practical. I agreed with the author’s overall notion that there should only be one way of executing a given function because having several different ways adds to the confusion of learning the software. Although it may seem more convenient to have many different choices initially, monotony imposes a standard that I believe will be more easily understood and referenced in the long run. It was also interesting how the author listed several instances where design had been catered to the unconscious and habitual movement. Overall, the author had a lot of quality insight regarding the relationship between design and human psychology that has given me a lot to think about.
[edit] Asmita Karandikar 12:37, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
I thought that Jeff Raskin’s “Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” was difficult to follow. However, I thought the piece was interesting because I had never thought much about conscious versus unconscious behaviors before. I especially enjoyed reading some of the examples because they were simple and made the concepts more clear. After reading this article, it becomes clear that the issues of conscious and unconscious thoughts need to be taken into account when designing products in order to keep the user focused on the task that needs to be completed.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth"
Jeff Raskin’s article “Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth” highlighted the importance of limiting modes and increasing monotony to make a product easy to use. I thought the piece contained a lot of useful information and examples to keep in mind during design. For example, the first section highlighted the importance of clear instructions. I appreciated reading the example during the discussion of whether or not it was better for a device to have many buttons or a few. The example describes a truck radio, where the driver needs to take his attention away from the road in order to tune the radio, or switch between AM and FM. I think many drivers would appreciate it if an interface similar to the Sony radio later described was available. I found this example interesting because my first thought would have been that it would be best to keep the interface as simple as possible with fewer buttons, but this example shows that this is not always the case.
[edit] Ricky Surachman 13:00, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” Although this chapter is trying to describe the difference between concious and unconcious, since the difference between them is still "blur", we still can not determine exactly what is concious and what is not, especially the "grey" area between this two. The examples that are used in this chapter, such as try to remember the last letter in your first name, help the readers to understand more about this difference. Nevertheless, the idea of conciousness should be considered in the process of design because the more you understand about conciousness and apply it to your product's design, the easier it will be for the product's users to use your product.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths”
I like how this chapter describe in detail about various mistakes in many computer program's designs and manuals. I especially interested on the discussion about CAD vellum about how sometimes users forget to change the cursor back after they have use it because their focus is on the object that they want to choose. I also like the discussion about "mode" that can cause human error, including in airplane accidents. about the monotony, although it eliminates some of the confusion having different ways to execute something, keeping the different method and let the users choose their own preference is better. For example, when you want to do "copy" in microsoft, you can either use ctrl+C or click the copy button. If you eliminate the ctrl+C method, for some user it will be very unconvenience because they have to stop typing and use mouse to click a button. If you remove the copy button, some of the user won't even know how to do copy. That is why I think letting the users choose their own preferences is a better idea.
[edit] Bryan Boling
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
This article provided an interesting look at how the cognitive conscious and unconscious affect human-machine interface design. For the most part I agreed with the authors views on the necessity to design around habit formation, and found it easy to relate to the frustration that can come when the task requires a conscious effort. I also found it interesting that humans can only consciously undertake one task at a time. Throuhgout my life, I've always considered myself a good multi-tasker, but after reading this article I've come to realize that this is only a result of the many tasks that are habitual to me. I'm able to listen to music, do my laundry, and finish my dynamics homework all at once because I only have to consciously think about the dynamics. It's also interesting that when one tries to undertake multiple tasks that require conscious effort at the same time, there is a degradation in one's ability to complete the tasks. when I read this I first thought of driving and talking on the cell phone at the same time. Although driving can be habitual, talking on the phone requires constant attention, which can seriously impede the user's driving when an unexpected obstacle is encountered. Overall, this artice was an interesting look at how the human thought process can be used to evaluate interface design.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotomy, and Myths"
This article was a good follow up to the previous article, and provided many good insights into the necessity to understand the humand mind in order to create good interface designs. For the most part, I agree with the author of this article, but I found some of his proposed solutions to interface design flaws to be as impractical as the current design flaws. After reading this article I started to notice how the devices and inerfaces I'm comfortable using tend to follow the practices discussed. For example, checking my email is a habitual practice for me, but even learning to check my email was easy for many reasons. Most importantly, there is only one way to accomplish this task, and it is done in a single mode. On the other hand, doing something like finding the number for a dentist can be much more complicated, since I would have to consciously decide how I could accomplish the task. The introduction of choices confuses, and for the habitual user can lead to mistakes. Similarly, by having multiple modes present the user can also be needlessly confused. An example of this in my life (albeit not the best example) is the kill switch on motorscooters. I almost never touch the switch, but occassionally it will be accidentally turned off preventing the scooter from starting. If this switch were not present, and only the ignition controlled whether the bike was on or off, like a car, this wouldn't be a problem, but the existence of multiple modes does lead to occasional frustration.
[edit] Nicolas Suryono 13:24, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
I think this articles is a very good article. It makes the designer aware of the user's need both from cognitive conscious and unconscious. I agree with the author's view that the designer must consider the user's habit and needs. The author also made a good distinction between what is considered cognitive conscious and unconscious by explaining how they operates and what the designer needs to understand about them.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotomy, and Myths"
This article reinforce the idea that we learned at the beginning in this class that "We are not the user." Designer must always think of the ways to make their design as user friendly as possible to the user. Oftentimes, when the designer allows the user to have full access to customize their design, the user become confused and might make a mistake because of the cognitive unconscious. However, sometimes the design is very hard to simplify so the user will need to adapt to the design of the product.
[edit] Brian Loo 13:26, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” This article was extremely interesting. It discussed cognitive thoughts of human’s interaction with technology and everyday life. I thought it was very well written especially with all the many examples provided. The article uses examples that everyone can relate to and easily understand which clarifies a lot of the theories being discussed. Some examples he uses are traffic lights, the last letter in our first name, and the buzzing noise from the office lights. I was amazed about the concepts of conscious and unconscious mind set we have. I never thought about the way I think or perceive information in this fashion until now. Especially the idea of being absorbed into one locus of attention without realizing it as described in the airplane example with the changing of a bulb. This article is surprising as I never thought product design needed to consider these theories in such depth.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths” The first section of the reading reminds me of class every semester as notation for each professor is different. Trying to interpret the new notation is challenging and sometimes ambiguous like the examples shown here. The chapter for the first several pages seemed very slow and outdrawn as while reading it I kept wondering what the main point is. Additionally this chapter seems very different compared to Chapter 2 as it was harder to follow and comprehend as there weren’t as many examples to clarify some of the points. However, I enjoyed the part about customization as it discussed both the pros and cons for users. I personally enjoy them, however, we get in the habit of them and when we use a different computer or such it can lead to frustration as you are using another computer with different settings. Furthermore, too much customization becomes negative as it causes many mode or interface issues.
[edit] Alec Berg 13:57, 24 January 2007 (PST)
I found the second chapter very interesting. The definitions and explanations of the cognitive conscious and subconscious were very accurate. There were lots of good examples demonstrating the capabilities of the human mind. The article made me appreciate how much thought has to go into designing something. As a designer, the goal is to make something that someone can do habitually so that it doesn’t have to take the attention of the conscious. I thought that the example of the airplane crash where the pilot and the co-pilot put the plane on autopilot and tried to change a light bulb was very surprising. However, I remember myself not noticing things in the past when I’m concentrated on something else. The way the brain works like that is very interesting. Also, the example at the end with the Canon Cat tricking users into thinking it was faster was a brilliant idea.
The third chapter was long and less interesting than the previous chapter. They discuss some design blunders that have occurred such as key stroke commands, which are very ambiguous and I know I have been confused by them at some point, and the BART ticketing machines. I thought the BART ticket machines that were described sounded pretty ridiculous in how bad they were. I think this chapter was helpful in understanding what makes a bad design and what makes a better design.
[edit] Connie 14:01, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” I found this chapter rather interesting. I particularly liked the section about habits and how we have to keep common habits in mind when designing products. We can design products that can produce habits either intentionally or not. This can be advantageous or not, though it seems that it will be really hard to tell until the habits actually form and are put into everyday use. I also found the whole concept of the locus of attention to be interesting because it is so true. We can ignore things that are right in front of us if it is not in our locus of attention. Overall, I thought the chapter had a lot of really good examples and, though a little wordy, got the points across.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths” It seems like the bulk of this chapter is on modes, more specifically mode errors. Though the only way to prevent mode errors is to eliminate modes completely, this is definitely not a user friendly solution. Depending on the product, there is a need for modes and so the problem is not that modes exist, but that we fail to efficiently communicate the results of adjusting a mode. Quasimodes can possibly be a fix for it, or simply better communication. Also, although modes can be confusing, I think there are many instances where confusion of modes can be cleared up quickly and will no longer be a problem. Though, there needs to be a distinction on when that is important, modes that control how a plane operates is much more important than the mode of a flashlight.
[edit] Umber Masood 14:41, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
This reading was interesting. I thought Raskin’s reference to cognetics as ergonomics of the mind was a nice way of comparing the two. It is also interesting that historically the mind and human performance have been described in terms of the technology that was being used in that time period. In the seventeenth century, it was clockwork. In the nineteenth century, it was the steam engine. Today, it is the computer. It seems that metaphors are often used to describe something, like the mind, especially when little is known about how it works. I found the table with the properties of the cognitive conscious and cognitive unconscious to be very helpful in understanding the differences between the two. I agree with Raskin, though, that the cognitive may not be a dichotomy. I also agree with Raskin that interfaces should be designed with the formation of habits in mind. In addition, I agree that if two tasks are done simultaneously and neither of them is automatic, then both tasks are not done well. For example, people are not able to both focus on driving and talking on a cell phone at the same time, and laws have been written to prevent this from happening. Overall, I agree with much of what Raskin has written. Some of what he wrote made me think; for example, about the difference between focus and locus and about the conscious and unconscious mind.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony and Myths”
This chapter was very different from the previous chapter. Whereas the second chapter was more about the mind, this chapter was more about computers. Raskin brings up some interesting arguments. I did not know that there was so much involved in designing computers and software in terms of how people use them. I liked the examples of the radio and oscilloscope, about needing to have the right number of buttons for use. This chapter made me think about the reasons why things are designed the way they are. I agree with what Raskin has written.
[edit] Megan Whittey 14:50, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
I found this article very helpful to read after reading our first homework assignment because it gives me a good background on what to look for when looking at good and bad designs. I thought it was interesting and intelligent that the goal of designers is to create a design or product that will help create a habit, that way users get in to the habit of using their products. I liked the exercises to show what unconscious and conscious were. It helped me realize the difference just by thinking of the last letter of my first name. Also, the exercises that made you think, like a memory and if an emotion or feeling came with that memory. I find that very true. Whenever I think of my friends or a fun trip I've taken with friends or family, it always brings up certain emotions that are very rewarding. One thing I disagreed with in this article was that they said that when the computer asks if you're sure you want to delete something, that it was rendered ineffective because of habit formation. Whenever that message comes up, it still makes me stop and think or realize what I'm doing and confirm the command even though I've deleted things hundreds of times.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony and Myths”
I personally didn't necessarily enjoy reading this article. It seemed pretty long, drawn out, and said the same thing alot. I understand more about modes now though. I understood how people would be confused by the unlock or lock feature. I also did understand about making products simple, and using devices that a human would normally use, such as a push button to push, a knob to turn and so on. I liked the example of the radio with the presets, I wouldn't have thought that the preset with the 34 separate buttons would be easier than the 6 buttons with three sets of presets. I disagreed with the author when he went on his rant about users not being able to have user preferences. That's a part I enjoy most when using new programs, that you're able to personalize it to your likes and dislikes.
[edit] Siu Pan Lam 15:45, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
It was very interesting to read about the cognitive conscious and cognitive unconscious that the author addressed in great detail in the chapter. I agreed with what the author commented about our awareness of the last character of our own last name until we encountered the sentence in the chapter that asked us to do so. Only until then, the thought about the last character of our own last name was able to become part of our conscious awareness. Further, the chapter discussed about how a stimulus can trigger a particular memory, feeling, or sensation. I could easily relate to this as there were times when I encountered songs that would stimulate memories of my past. In general, the purpose of the chapter was to bring to our awareness that cognitive ergonomics is just as important in the design of interfaces as physical ergonomics.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth"
In this chapter, the author began by focusing on the definitions of several technical terms and conventions associated with interfaces. In this part of the chapter, the author specified the ambiguity of the conventional notations for the sequences of keystrokes, which I was unaware of until I read that part of the chapter. It is true that sometimes the notations for the sequences of keystrokes can be confusing, depending on how familiar the user is with the intention of the user manual or the machine that the user is operating. However, I do not agree that modes are a hindrance to interface design – that they are “a significant source of errors, confusion, unnecessary restrictions, and complexity interfaces,” as the author addressed in the chapter. Without modes, it would be tremendously inconvenient to be operating on a remote-piloted vehicle if there were a single button for every action owing to the fact that the remote would likely to be massive. Therefore, there is likely a tradeoff between how much convenience you want the design to possess versus how user-friendly the design is.
[edit] James ChunJye Tong 15:27, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
This chapter focuses on how human mind works and defines conscious and unconscious actions. The designer must determine what human can do and cannot do; the designers must consider human behavior as an important factor in their design. I think it is interesting when the author explains the conscious and unconscious reactions and that a person can only do one thing consciously at one time. It is also important to design the product that would smoothly fit into the user’s habits. I think the author has brought up some good points of how human reacts psychologically; however, many of the ideas are repeated for many times. I think it might be better to just explain the definition of the important terms and provide short examples to help readers understand the terms.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony and Myths"
This chapter the author explains why modes are bad for interface design. I disagree with the author that user-preference settings should be eliminated. I think the designer should allow the user to have flexibility when they use the product. It makes no sense to me to prevent the users to have the ability to make the program more convenient for them to use. I agree with the author that “simplicity, clarity of function, and visibility” are important in designing interface, and I can see how the author got confused about “Control+.”; however, I think most of the users will be able to learn from their mistakes and getting used to it eventually.
[edit] Rey Doctora 15:31, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” This chapter elucidated human characteristics and understanding in our day-to-day lives. Reading this chapter made me realize how much of our everyday actions stem from our cognitive unconscious caused by repetitive actions or out of habits. The part of the reading that fascinated me the most concerned our locus of attention: I liked how Rankin attempted to understand its origins and also explain how there is only one central locus of attention for each of us. This makes me wonder how variable a person’s locus of attention can be and to what degree a person’s locus of attention must attain to perform multiple tasks well.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths” This reading built on the previous chapter and stressed how designs should use the concepts learned in chapter 2. The chapter begins with some very ambiguous examples of good keystroke notation and provided examples of good and bad designs such as the BART machines and the Cat computers. I found the section on CAD especially surprising because I have worked with CAD and experienced the same modal problems discussed in the reading. In the end, this chapter stressed a good balance between simplistic and complex user-interface design with particular importance on good mode design.
[edit] Hong How Quek 15:36, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention" This article focuses mainly on the cognitive conscious and the cognitive unconscious, and develops metaphors and exercises to explain and differentiate these abstract concepts, which I found extremely helpful. I found myself in a philosophical argument about what should be considered conscious/unconscious, and concluded that in most human activity, it is not really possible to draw a clear-cut line between the two. I am convinced that in designing products, we should only have one lotus of attention since humans are not able to respond to multiple stimuli at the same time. This is akin to how we cannot have more than one thought in our head at any one time, and I thought it made complete sense.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotomy, and Myths"
This second chapter delved more into practice, after having expanded on the theoretical concepts in the previous chapter and hence I found it to be more easily comprehensible. I enjoyed reading the range of examples provided (AutoCAD, BART etc) that helped me to really appreciate the importance of limiting the number of modes and increasing monotony such that users will be able to operate products much more easily.
[edit] Minhaaj Khan 15:46, 24 January 2007 (PST)
Cognetics and the Locus of Attention
The basic idea of this chapter was about designing interfaces taking into account the limitations of the human mind. Primarily the fact that the human mind has one locus of attention and that habit formation is natural. I found the idea that we have one locus of attention very interesting as this no doubt makes perfect sense. I liked the examples used in the chapter like the example of searching for an object in a room and not finding it even though the object was on our retina as the object never became the locus of our attention. This way of explaining made the article easy to read even though it was lengthy. I also found the concepts of cognitive unconscious and cognitive conscious interesting. Understanding the human mind in this manner makes perfect sense and the examples presented in the chapter helped prove that our mind functions this way. I doubt someone read the part about the final character of their first name and consciously knew the relationship between the letter and their name; it certainly was an unconscious thought until it was pointed out and I became conscious of it.
Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths
This chapter made some really interesting points in terms of modes, the usefulness of monotony to a certain degree, and the fact that human interface does not have to be split into beginner and expert subsystems. Having said this, with all due respect to the author, it was overly long and at times monotonous. I understand the argument about how designing a monotonous system for all users can lead to greater efficiency and the many benefits the author listed; however, as someone else noted earlier, this might be somewhat counterproductive as people like to have options and don’t like to be forced into a single way of doing something. However, the author does say that an interface should, “insofar as possible” be monotonous, to be extraordinarily pleasant to use. Note that he didn’t say it has to be completely monotonous, but used the words "insofar as possible." Based on that understanding, I agree that monotony should be pursued wherever it can prove beneficial to all types of users while at the same time keeping them form feeling constrained.
[edit] Penny Yuan 15:49, 24 January 2007 (PST)
Cognetics and the Locus of Attention::
Though the article may be a bit dry, Raskin does a good job of defining and illustrating the difference between the cognitive conscious and the unconscious, the locus of attention and a person's focus, and also relates both those comparisons to the ability to form habits. I found it particularly interesting that he delves into the mind and how it functions in order to teach designers to create better interfaces for users. I especially enjoyed the section on forming habits and how after people are used to doing something habitually, it is incredibly hard to think differently, which led to how some designers lay "traps" for users and don't necessarily consider human habits in the design.
Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths::
The examples provided on modes in interface design in this chapter were very true for many current interfaces. I realize that to solve many of these problems, Raskin wants standardization, such as the keys F1- F12 on a keyboard, etc, and insists upon creating user customization sparingly. However, I tend to disagree with this because though it may make the manufacturing process easier and possibly increase productivity in users, there are always people who do not have the same habits as the rest of the population. Also, ridding customization limits the company's market size due to their being inconsiderate to the customers' needs. I feel that customization should happen, but that it can be left up to the users to set their own commands.
[edit] Luciana Cook 15:51, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
Although this article looked pretty long, the reading went by fast because most of the things that the author spoke about were things I could relate to. It just made me remember all the times I have smelled some fragrance that I have smelled in the past and I remember exactly who smelled liked that and at what point in time. Similarly when I listen to music and I could imagine myself listening to that song in some other place. If the song has any emotional meaning to me, I might also have that feeling once more. It is also very interesting when the author speaks about things that he says we naturally do without thinking. One example for me would be putting my seatbelt as soon as I enter my car…its something I have as an automatic in my mind.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth”
I think this article has some good points, but at times seems to go to the extreme. I do agree very much when the author speaks about gestures and how it would make life easier if the same gestures meant the same thing all the time. This article seemed very similar to one of the readings due Monday, except I found the one from Monday to be more straight forward and more of a guidance on How to Build a program that is user-friendly.
[edit] Patricia Wang 16:02, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
This article details the differences between one’s cognitive conscious and unconscious states and the impact of one’s locus of attention. It also emphasizes the importance of creating an interface that takes advantage of the human tendency to develop habits. I found that the application of these theories to the design of interfaces, particularly the response to deletions and errors, to be especially useful. For example, the confirmation steps required after the deletion of a file, in order to be effective, must grasp the user’s locus of attention away from his/her habitual behavior.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths”
In this chapter, Raskin describes a number of concrete examples regarding the effects of certain design choices. It was interesting that even though modes provide the user more functionality in the design, they can also cause a number of errors, thus detracting from the overall design quality. One of the examples I enjoyed discussed the design issues of Microsoft Word, which led into whether the option to change an interface design was advantageous. Though I would initially consider interface personalization to be desirable for the user, Raskin offers an interesting counterpoint, arguing that customization will only make the system more complex and difficult to learn.
[edit] Joshua Funamura 16:03, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
Chapter 2 outlined the differences between conscious and unconscious cognition, the idea that we can only focus on one "locus of attention", and their role in designing interfaces. It brings to mind issues that I never thought of, with clever solutions like the Canon Cat's sneaky deception. I found the concept of human habit formation's nullification of confirmation boxes to be quite intriguing too, as it is such a well-meaning feature that ultimately just complicates the interface.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths"
Chapter 3 seemed to be more pertinent to actual design, as it talked about the many pitfalls that interface designers can fall into. As a user of many different computer programs, I can attest to many of the issues mentioned in this chapter, having been frustrated with problems like the state ambiguity, persisting modes, and invisible functions. It's somewhat relieving to have external confirmation that my frustrations aren't unfounded and that the blame for my errors can be partially placed on the interface designer. The section on monotony (3-5) elaborates on the issue brought up in the "plagiarism" portion of "The Task-Centered Design Process". The author gives a strong argument and example against backward compatibility. However, I don't entirely agree with the author's claims that interfaces are idealized by being monotonous. Though I suppose my perspective is a product of previously poorly-designed interfaces, it seems that as long as we have multiple input devices, like the keyboard and mouse, that speed and efficiency would warrant the use of both, in the form of keyboard shortcuts and menus, respectively. It's understandable that keyboard shortcuts can be hard to learn and hopelessly numerous and complex, so clarity seems to favor the menu/button interface. But unlike using the mouse, keyboard shortcuts can be formed into a habit, keeping the locus of attention on the task, rather than the method.
[edit] Fenelia Kosasih 16:08, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the locus of attention”
- The article first introduces the idea of cognitive consciousness and unconsciousness and later on noted the importance of considering them in designing human interfaces. It is interesting how the author noted that the execution of simultaneous tasks is only possible if all but one of the tasks are automatic and how human cannot avoid the formation of habits or automation. I too can relate to the example of his error when using Microsoft word after having already formed habits of using Mac word processors as I recently switched from using Windows to Mac. I thus agree with the author that the inevitability of automaticity must be taken into account when designing human interfaces.
“Meaning, Modes, Monotony and Myths”
- The article introduces how modes can cause errors, confusion and complexity in interfaces. The author cited examples of how it is hard to tell if the flashlight button is on or off, and how toggle button makes things confusing. He suggested the advantage of using a single mode. I’ve faced similar problems with telling if a light switch is in on or off state when trying to change the bulb. So, in a way, monotony can be advantageous. However, setting up monotony in every single design interfaces may not be practical. I feel that allowing customization is important as it can provide greater convenience for the user, although it is true that the same convenience will not be achieved if another user uses it.
[edit] Urvashi 16:11, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
This article is fascinating to read and offers a deep understanding of human psychology, despite the fact that it gets hard to follow at times. I especially liked the part where the connection between the conscious and subconscious mind is explained. Also the author mentioned that there may be a state between the conscious and the unconscious and a temporary transition between the two conditions might be a way of explaining what actually happens when it seems like the answer we’re looking for is “on the tip of out tongue” but we are not able to quite place it. This article also shows us that differences between the conscious and the unconscious mind are very important in how an individual thinks and subsequently the approach he takes to carrying out a lot of his tasks. The article points us that designs become obsolete after a while as our subconscious minds grow accustomed to them after enough exposure and we need to constantly re-create in order to have products that are effective in getting us to think and respond in a required way.
“Meanings, mode, monotony and myth”
This article was definitely less abstract than the previous one and hence much easier to follow. The author draws a lot of parallels between design and the human psyche (which was explored in detail in the earlier chapter) and I can understand why certain kinds of people are better at designing than others. It shows us that testing a new product is a lot more effective when people are made to use them in the situations they would be using these most often. For example, a truck driver tuning a radio while sitting in an office would be very different from him doing it on the highway while steering the vehicle among all the traffic, as his conscious mind will be focused on the road. These are definitely things a designer needs to keep in mind while designing and testing his products and interfaces. The designer can only simplify the interface of his product to a certain extent however, and there comes a point where the user has to be willing to put in the effort to understand and familiarize himself with the interface so he can get the most out of it.
[edit] Anar Joshi 16:17, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”: This article began with high-level definitions of ergonomics and cognetics, terms used to provide a background for the later exploration into the conscious and unconscious mind. Ergonomics is a science that examines the way people use things in order to design objects in the most efficient way. It is used in design for a variety of purposes ranging from everyday objects such as chairs to software applications. Cognetics is described as the fusion of engineering and people’s mental abilities. The article then goes on to describe the differences and branches between people’s cognitive unconscious and cognitive conscious. In explaining the unconscious the article prompted the reader to think about how tight or loose their clothes were. The reader than begins to think about how their clothes felt on them which they were not aware of earlier. I found this section to be extremely interesting because it made me think of things that I did not even realize I was doing.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths”: This article described how user-interface could be better designed with an understanding of the ideas of locus of attention and cognetics. Two of the topics that I found to be of interest in this article included the example of the toggle feature on flashlights and the discussion of how many buttons are optimal. The flashlight example examined the negative effects of a toggle button, which the user would tap once to turn on and twice to turn off (assuming that the flashlight was initially turned off). If the user is unsure of the state of the flashlight, he or she would have to verify whether or not the flashlight is on before proceeding. This is example depicts the drawbacks of an item with only two modes. Later, the article discussed if it was better to have more or less buttons on a particular product. After analyzing various controllers such as The Tektronix oscilloscope to truck radios, the author came to the conclusion that: “Fewer buttons and simpler-looking controls are not always better”. It is evident that the control should be user-focused as well as design friendly.
[edit] Shilpi Verma 16:19, 24 January 2007 (PST)
Cognetics and the Locus of Attention: This article was pretty interesting because it got me thinking about how we subconsciously end up thinking about certain things. I never realized how our mind was always working, even when we were not aware of it. The whole concept of ergonmics and cognitive unconscious is so abstract that it is somewhat difficult to understand, but this article does a really good job trying to explain the concepts through various examples. It was creative how initially the examples mentioned followed mental constructs from the unconscious to the conscious. The one example that was really applicable to my life was the “tip of the tongue” example. There have been many times where I know the person, but just cannot remember their name. After reading this article, I realized how important the thoughts in the conscious and unconscious are important when designing products.
Meanings, Mode, Monotony, and Myths: I liked this article a lot more than the first one. It would have never occurred to me how important limiting modes and increasing monotony are in making a product easy to use. It was really interesting because we don’t realize how many devices we are all so comfortable using follow the practices that were discussed in the article. The other part of the article that I really enjoyed reading was about how customization can be both good and bad. I guess it varies on a case to case basis, but I feel too much customization has a strong negative effect.
[edit] Shwan Kazzaz 16:24, 24 January 2007 (PST)
Cognetics and the Locus of Attention-
This article was very verbose at times, making it obnoxious and hard to focus on. The author made some simple points, such as: people can only do one thing at a time, or people make a habit out of responding YES to "Are you sure" messages. But there simpleton points really did not need as much rehashing and examples as the author provided, and a twenty-something page chapter could easily have been a 6 page chapter. However, I definitely agreed with many of the points, and found the overall concept of really delving into our personal consciousness to properly design interfaces not only interesting, but absolutely necessary. I believe that if every designer implemented just these simple basics in his/her own designs, the world would be a much more intuitive place. I also enjoyed the small piece on the applications of MRI machines in interface design, as I held an internship recently dealing with cognition and MRI techniques.
Meanings, Mode, Monotony, and Myths-
This article, being written by the same author, was again overly wordy and annoyingly detailed. I didn't feel as though the explanations of how a mouse works or how keystrokes work was necessarily essential to my understanding of a computer interface. Or at least the amount of detail I was given was not necessary. I did however enjoy the simplicity of a reference (Norman 1983) who listed three ways to minimize mode errors:
"1. Do not have modes.
2. Make sure that the modes are distinctively marked.
3. Make sure that the commands required by different modes are not the same, so that a command issued in the wrong mode will not lead to difficulty."
This was simple, to the point, and easy to understand. While some of the author's explanations were not.
I also like the idea of making parts of an interface visible, and parts not. In a time where screens and devices are becoming smaller and smaller, this is more and more important.
[edit] Michael Chen 20:21, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
The article reminds me of a psychology class that I once took. None of the material is at all new, and all of us know it all already. Instead, the author assigns terms to our own experiences, and in doing so is able to argue them effectively in small increments. The entire time I was reading the article, my first impulse was to say: well duh, but the impressive bit is the organization required to communicate all the aspects of the locus of attention. At the same time, I think the author spent a little too much time defining his version of consciousness. We get it, his version is different. It's not worth two whole pages to write about.
“Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth”
This chapter's material is much less obvious than the previous one. Admittedly, there is a greater than usual setup, with another slew of definitions, but the discussion of modes becomes much richer. The entire premise of the chapter is that people do the same "gesture" to do different things in different contexts, and that shouldn't happen. This is the first article that I've read that questions the efficacy of having fewer buttons, and I for one am quite glad that someone has finally asked that. Calculators have tons of buttons, but they're a lot more useful than if it had an iPod-like clickwheel. That topic, along with the discussion of verb-noun vs. noun-verb, was refreshingly new for me.
[edit] Aubuchon 16:28, 24 January 2007 (PST)
The article on Cognetics and the Locus of Attention does an interesting job of identifying the difference between the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. It also makes an interesting extension of the ideas of consciousness and unconsciousness as being “empirical” states of the mind. It also discourses well on other tendencies of the mind such as the formation of habits, the difficulty of simultaneous processing of stimuli, and the argument of having only one locus of the mind. I found the arguments to be a little too qualitative, and would have appreciated a little more depth in the results of some of the cited scientific experiments, but perhaps this was out of the scope of the articles immediate audience.
The article Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths presents an excellent view about modes- being that although it is easier to adapt a human to a product, this in effect makes the user “imprisoned” as opposed to “liberated.” It also made a case for keeping interfaces monotonous as far as is possible. I also enjoyed the fact that the article provided some resolutions with the airplane safety design. Overall, I felt the article was a little long and tedious.
[edit] Ryan Jue 16:29, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
This article presented a perspective on our thoughts and actions that I hadn't thought of before with the conscious and unconscious mind. One example that comes to mind with I was reading the article was driving. Beginning drives tend to focus on the task at hand thinking when to start slowing down, stopping and going again. Whereas on the other hand, older, more experienced drivers will be multitasking by talking, listening to music, observing events on the road, etc. On some routine drives, it almost becomes me getting absorbed by these other tasks and the directions and driving are completely habitual and part of my unconsious.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths"
I felt that article had some interesting stories but I feel that some of the content might have been a little dated. While it is true that the concept of a computer might have been very different from the pre-computer age, I feel that in this society today, the computer is almost an extension of human interaction due to the various forms and usages that we all grow up using. While this may not apply to the entire world's population, I feel that the intended audience of the book is well versed in computer usage and a better example could have been used. On the other hand, it had some good side examples like the BART. Using the BART for the past four years now, I was amazed at how inefficient it was compared to the subway system in NY.
[edit] Rabia Siddiqi 16:30, 24 January 2007 (PST)
Cognetics and the Locus of Attention
I liked this article because it was easy to read and provided good examples that I could relate with. The main purpose was to explain that design interfaces should take into account the way the human mind works to make systems more easily accessable and prevent errors. Due to a strong single locus of attention, our minds allow us to focus on one task and systems should be designed so we can use this aspect of our minds efficiently. I found it interesting to consider the states of conciousness and unconciousness as well as habit-forming. The aircraft incident was a good example of where things went wrong, and human reactions were not properly considered in the design.
Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths
Some points that the author made are definitely valid, but I do not think making systems monotonous is a perfect solution. Monotony in systems may make things more efficient at times, but I think customization by the user is also important and keeps systems user-friendly. I do agree that modes should be limited to make things simpler. The examples of good and bad product designs are used well, but I am still not fully convinced. In my computer, for example, I view preferences and customization as ways of personalizing my experience and I would not want to give this up, even to gain efficiency.
[edit] IKhambaty 16:33, 24 January 2007 (PST)
I found the way this article on cognitics and locus of attention ties consious and unconsousness to the framework of designing interfaces to be fascinating. It brings out good points and issues i was never really consious of. I really like how the writter tied everyday actions and thought to idea of consiousness and unconsiousness. Like as seeing a habitat as an absence of a consiousness. I find the view of the author to be very unique and orginal. Unlike most designers, the autheor believes a good design process is dependent on understandng the cognative proceses of the users.
[edit] Christine Shih 16:34, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the locus of attention" This article talks about the limitations of the human mind and how it is important to design interfaces in view of these limitations. Quite honestly, I never really thought about this topic before, but everything I read made a lot of sense. I wonder though, with how much certainty can the author of this novel ascertain what he is saying is truth since how do you prove what is going on in the human mind? I agreed completely with the idea of the locus of attention. Even when reading this article, my locus of attention was constantly shifting- i would get momentarily distracted from reading when i heard cars in the street. Sometimes, I would hear the noises, sometimes i wouldn't, depending how absorbed i was into the article. I wonder how the idea of humans only be able to have 1 locus of attention fits with multi-tasking. Is it contradictory?
“Meaning, Modes, Monotony and Myths” This article/chapter was really long. It talked a lot about modes and how they caused humans to error- sometimes, with catastrophic results. Apparently, simpler designs are better (but not too simple) and customization is unecessary (in fact it suggests that the original design could be improved). I felt this article exposed the stupidity of humans. The BART ticket booth example was interesting because the BART design they described is not at all like the one we currently use- for which, I am completely grateful. Instead of having to hit a correction button, i just subtract 5 cents continously. Which, now I realize, is rather repetitive and the design probably can still be further improved.
[edit] Luna Dai 16:40, 24 January 2007 (PST)
"Cognetics and the Locus of Attention"
This article brings up the study of cognetics, an ergonomics of the mind, and its application to interface design. Given that the cognitive conscious is far more limiting than the cognitive unconscious, designers should create interfaces that taps into the user's habits, the cognitive unconscious. I especially agreed with the uselessness of repetitive confirmations; I am now so used to closing pop-out windows of spam from websites that I more or less close all pop-out windows, even when they are not spam. Unfortunately, it is a difficult to differentiate and keep users from making automatic responses to repetitive stimuli. Any color differentiation would easily be copied by the makers of the spam. The article gives the example of the draconian method which would make the user do a new task each time in order to confirm. However, this would be highly unpopular with users.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths"
This article starts of discussing the downfalls of modes, then goes on to propone monotonous interfaces, and ends with a dispelling of the myth of a beginner-expert dichotomy among users. Raskin talks about user-maintained quasimodes as an effective replacement for modes, such as holding down shift to make a letter upper-case. More patient users would find this preferable to a caps lock key, but users having to use all caps to make banners for example, would find the caps lock preferable. While I agree that monotony in systems promotes efficient habits in individual users, monotony between individuals makes less sense due to individual user needs. For instance, some cultures traditionally start reading text at the top right corner of a page, instead of the standard top left. Different regions may associate different words for the same action, making one command more logical than another. Individual users should be able to adjust their systems accordingly.
[edit] YeeWan Cheung 16:44, 24 January 2007 (PST)
<Chapter 2> I strongly agree what the article said, “Much of the difficulty that we have with computers and related devices is due to poor interface design rather than to any complexity inherent to the task…” I am totally connected to what this said. For an example, I remember it took me more than half an hour to click around and search for help in Excel to try finding the button for tread line. It was a very frustrated experience. Besides, I like very much that the author uses tables to summarize concepts and examples to bring abstract ideas like cognitive conscious and unconscious to real life. Later on in the chapter I found the concept to create interfaces that won’t allow habits to cause problems for the user very new, but very challenging on the other hand. Overall, the idea of locus of attention is pretty interesting, but I would like to know more of its practical applications on the design.
<Chapter 3> I found less agreement to the author’s opinion in this chapter. In one of the section, the author mentioned his experience with the usage of Word, and he described how difficult for him to find a button due to the customization did by the previous user. I think this kind of customization problem can easily be avoided, for an example, by using a login system, in which the computer will automatically reset to the default setting after the logout of each user. And this is how our school W&MF set up in all our labs. I believed customization is a strong tool that provides the user to have enough freedom to set up their own environment. Recalling what the author said in the beginning of this chapter about the danger of modes and the ways to prevent it, I think customization is one of the good way to minimize the cost of modes. Think about it this way, if users can customize the machine in their own way, the users will find it easier to use, and thus less button errors will happen. I think this is a designer’s job to design an interface that doesn’t require the users to be knowledgeable in order to be able to use/ customize the interface efficiently and easily. I agree with the author that visibility and affordances are important component for a successful interface design.
[edit] Marshall Anderson 16:45, 24 January 2007 (PST)
Ch 2:
I found this article to be a very interesting read. I liked the authors "locus of attention" idea and how explains the implications to interface design. I particularly agreed with the section on habit forming and it. My main problem with this article is that the concepts are relatively easy to understand and I wish it was presented with fewer examples. Another thing I did not like is that he says that interfaces should be designed so will that then may not respond to communication directed at them. This can be very bad in a dangerous environment! The Cannon CAT sounds like it had some great things going for it and I wonder why we don't see the same ideas today.
Ch 3:
I loved this chapter because it addresses the things that i have grown to hate about interfaces. The discussion on modes is fully complete and perhaps a bit long. There is nothing more frustrating than a multi-mode interface! However, I find that the quasi-mode interfaces work great because the user is actively aware that they are changing the mode. I was interested in the Noun-verb versus verb-noun section and I wondered if the same outcome (noun-verb being better) would be reached for people whose native language is not English. Overall I think this chapter was better than Ch 2 because it covered more issues that are important in interface design. This reading gave me justice…I hate personalized menus in windows and office XP.
[edit] Shady Guirguis 16:48, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” I found the material discussed in this article quite interesting. The examples provided by the author really helped me understand the concepts he was trying to discuss. The author explains how the human is not aware of his surroundings until the brain is triggered. I especially liked the concept of how humans are not aware of light till it is either switched on or off. This helps narrow the idea of product development, and how we should target products to try to capture this idea that the human is easily distracted and should focus on only one thing.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths"
I think this article provides some interesting ideas and concepts about machine interface. In order for a design to be useful by a customer, it must be easy to use and follow. Although there are some fascinating machines out there, the interface can make a machine hard to use and lose its value. I agree with the author regarding customizable keys. I think have a customizable keyboard would be one of the worst ideas, as it would be incredibly hard to use if you are not able to carry your own desktop where ever you go. It is easy for someone to type over 70 words per minute on any keyboard, because the keys are always positioned the same way.
[edit] Karena 16:48, 24 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention” In the article Jeff Raskin raises a question “What is the last character in your first name?” It takes me about one second to answer this question. After reading this article, I have noticed that there are many examples of cognetic unconsciousness in my daily life. I asked my friends if they remember the license plate number of their cars. Only half of them could give me correct answers althought all of them drive everyday. Moreover, I agree with Raskin that human being have only one locus of attention. When I was doing my homeworks, I can barely heard my friend’s conversation even though I was sitting next to them. It is because I was focusing on my homeworks.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths" In this article Jeff Raskin claims that most of computer users’ confusions are caused by the availability of different modes and preferences. I disagree with the author at this point. Those people are confused by different functions of their computers because they did not try to familiar with it. It should only takes about couple days to get used to all new functions. And this opportunity to learn is not limited to people who are computer experts. Instead of eliminating the choice of preferences and modes, people should spend more effort to adapt to different functions of their computers.
[edit] Karey Park 16:50, 24 January 2007 (PST)
Chapter 2
This chapter was a pretty thorough read, providing a lot of good insight into habit-forming and focus, both of which are human factors that have a direct impact on the way a design and its user "connect," so to speak. The point made was that design should always cater to the habitual activities of its users. It is a valid consideration, but one that undermines the individuality and nobility of products; its "dignity," for the lack of a better term. Should products be designed so that people can have many other things on their mind, i.e., more than a single locus of attention, and operate it properly? Product designers should take more pride in what they do, give some credit to the general population, and allow the functionality of their product take priority over ease and unambiguity of directions.
Chapter 3
This third chapter, though a rather informative one, is a little long, explaining the frustration and difficulty that comes from various modes. The author continued on, with example after example, which became superfluous. Nevertheless, the author does the job, making more or less the same point (that design should be intuitive for its users). Providing the same point, and doing so from a different angle, often provides different insights, and can lead certain people to realize the author's point who wouldn't have realized it earlier. And, if anything, it illustrated indirectly through examples that design and human infactors are indispensable considerations, regardless of what product is being designed.
[edit] Sumeet Patel 15:48, 25 January 2007 (PST)
Chap 2: Cognetics and Locus of Attention I found this chapter very interesting and it was nice how we can tie psychology and engineering together. Most of the time in engineering, we focus too much on the numbers and the correct answer but this article was able to go into the cognitive processes that shape how we thank about design. The way the author described the difference between the conscious and unconscious was not as clear as it could have been. I’ve taken a few psychology courses and they were able to explain the nuances of the brain a little better and talk more about the fringe which is the border of conscious and unconscious.
Chap 3: Meanings, Modes, Monotony, Myth I thought that this chapter was a good follow up to the previous one. It took the concepts of habits and repetitive patterns to realistic circumstances. It was interesting to see the controlling processes that exist within all the devices that we use in everyday life. We don’t realize how much we use things everyday without thinking about them, like computers. Logging onto the internet and using basic computer functions have become second nature and almost unconscious like breathing.
[edit] HAK-SEUNG KIM 16:46, 25 January 2007 (PST)
“Cognetics and the Locus of Attention”
This article tells us why the industrial designers need to understand the human performing. Also, the author suggest the examle of MS word to explain why the program need to have some common figures to follow the human’s habit. I think it is the most important thing that the industrial designers should have: “focus on human”. Machines are useless if we feel uncomfortable with using the machines. “let’s focus on human”.
"Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myth"
In this article, the author makes some suggustion how the industrial designer should design: simpler or easier?? I think it depends on where or what the machines use for. For example, toster machine at home need to be easy and simple to use. However, toster machine (baking machine) at the bakery, baker might need complex machine, so that he/she can make tastier bread. Sometimes, too much simple machine makes inconvenience in our lives. For instance, if we design only one functional shoes (maybe, for running), we might n