Well, boom:
Don’t you think it is weird that every designer you come across says they like minimalism? Minimalism is an art term that designers tried to bring over into our realm. We don’t do art. We engineer solutions and if that solution is anything more than “˜minimal’ then it usually means we lost a battle with a client.
The article Air France Flight 447: “Damn it, we’re going to crash” is long and fascinating. But most of all, it’s frightening. It paints a vivid picture of what happened the night of June 1st 2009, when Air France Flight 447 from Rio de Janeiro to Paris went missing. The plane was eventually found days later – all 228 passengers and crew died in the crash.
For me, the biggest take-away from the article is that sometimes bad design can cost lives. Much of the article is about the design flaws in Airbus planes that resulted in multiple – and eventually fatal – human errors by the pilots. The details are important so you should definitely read the whole article, but two main design issues are discussed.
First, there is a lack of information given to pilots:
In the next 40 seconds AF447 fell 3,000 feet, losing more and more speed as the angle of attack increased to 40 degrees. The wings were now like bulldozer blades against the sky. Bonin failed to grasp this fact, and though angle of attack readings are sent to onboard computers, there are no displays in modern jets to convey this critical information to the crews. One of the provisional recommendations of the BEA inquiry has been to challenge this absence.
Second, there is a lack of visual feedback on the particular kind of steering that’s used on all Airbus planes. Because of the way the so-called “fly-by-wire” steering method is implemented on the Airbus, it’s very difficult for pilots to see what their colleagues are doing, and therefore almost impossible to spot human error:
The American manufacturer [Boeing] was concerned about [the Airbus] side sticks’ lack of visual and physical feedback. Indeed, it is hard to believe AF447 would have fallen from the sky if it had been a Boeing. Had a traditional yoke been installed on Flight AF447, Robert would surely have realised that his junior colleague had the lever pulled back and mostly kept it there. When Dubois returned to the cockpit he would have seen that Bonin was pulling up the nose.
As I read through this article I was immediately reminded of Nielsen’s first usability heuristic:
Visibility of system status
The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
Both of the main issues that resulted in the crash of Flight AF447 could have been avoided by following the simple guidelines of system status visibility. It’s what makes this already horrifying event even worse.
As web designers we are extremely lucky – our design mistakes don’t endanger lives. But even though we don’t make daily life-or-death decisions in our profession, we should still pay extra attention to this first, and arguably most important, rule of UI design: always make sure users know where they are, and that they have the information they need to make their next decision. This is one of those simple design rules that seems obvious when it’s followed, but results in major abandonment when it’s broken.
When a user gives an input we have to acknowledge receipt of that input. This input is usually in the form of a click or a touch. It’s the user’s way of starting a conversation, so don’t be rude – talk back. These buttons below, designed by Alex Maughan for kalahari.com, is a good example of appropriate feedback:
As soon as the user clicks the “Add to basket” button, the animated spinner and text give an indication that something is happening. Or consider this idea for a new kind of signup flow outlined on the 37signals blog:
You could preview the workflow steps that come after the signup so it’s clear how much of a gap there is between signing up and getting value out of the product.
This approach gives users comfort, because they know what’s going to happen next. They have all the information they need, so there’s no need to panic and abandon the flow. (You can click through to the original post for a sketch of this idea)
This principle isn’t new or complicated. But reading about the Air France tragedy reminded me again that we sometimes skip over the basics to implement the fancy. So here’s an idea: pick your favorite “get the basics right” sports cliché and put it on the wall so you can see it whenever you’re designing (you know, like catches win matches or something). Or just get straight to the point and write, “Appropriate feedback makes for happy users”.
Against Chairs is a simply delightful article:
I hate to piss on the party, but chairs suck. All of them. No designer has ever made a good chair, because it is impossible. Some are better than others, but all are bad. Not only are chairs a health hazard, they also have a problematic history that has inextricably tied them to our culture of status-obsessed individualism. Worse still, w’ve become dependent on them and it’s not clear that w’ll ever be free.
It also boasts one of the better opening lines I’ve seen in a while. I won’t spoil it for you.
RIM Admits it is Behind Australia’s ‘Wake Up’ Campaign:
Those assembled [in front of the Apple store] chanted “wake up” and held placards decorated with the same message, while some protesters dressed as sheep, in another dig at Apple’s popular products and cult following.
I don’t understand why companies think that ridiculing Apple users is a better strategy than making good products. It’s what happens when you believe Marketing > Product.
Jon Kolko gives some great advice on design critiques. I particularly enjoyed this part:
A “bad critique” is one of the most valuable things a designer can receive, because it short-circuits the expert blind spot and helps you see things in new and unique ways, and it does it quickly. But sometimes in the design process, you don’t actually want feedback at all: you want affirmation, and you want someone to celebrate your work so you feel good. Learning to understand the difference is critical, because if you ask for critique, people will give you critique. But if you ask people to tell you the three best parts of your design, they’ll probably do it. As Adam Connor offered in his IA Summit talk, “Don’t ask for critique if you only want validation. If you want a hug, just ask.“
Speaking of critiques, this is my preferred process to get the most value out of them.
It is tough looking back at life and wondering if you had created anything of lasting importance. The creative person’s ransom is that you usually have to sacrifice something to achieve that feeling. It is tough and not every design that we go through will even come close to being that one of lasting importance. However, I think it is vital that we continue to look for those opportunities no matter if there is a dollar sign attached to them or not. No matter if the people on the awards sites will notice. No matter if our peers praise us or not. All of those things are great, but that isn’t what you are searching for deep down. That isn’t what is going to make you smile 10 years down the road.
Francisco Inchauste unpacks the difficult process of designing simple products in Simplicity Isn’t Simple. He explains that simplicity isn’t just something you start tacking on towards the end of a project:
It still amazes me how many people ask for simplicity but don’t realize this phase of the design has passed when they’ve already listed out what they want it to do, or in the case of a Website, tell you what needs to be on the homepage.
True simplicity starts at conception. It’s infused into the being of the creators, and by proxy, in the soul of every product they design.
He also outlines some practical strategies for creating simple products.
Klouchebag – a satirical response to “influence” measurement site Klout – is making the rounds today. It’s a lot of fun (I’m apparently quite a nice person), but it’s more than that. At the bottom of the page, creator Tom Scott gives some excellent advice on how you should view your Klout score:
But… but my Klout score is important!
No it’s not. It’s like search engine optimisation, only for yourself. Ignore it. Concentrate on making amazing things, caring about the people around you, and not being a douchebag. If you do that, then you’ll soon realise that it doesn’t matter one jot what an algorithm thinks of you.
Not one jot. Sometimes only British English can describe a thing accurately.