dvrom.eu

Lately, I have become quite a frequent user of various transportation services, such as buses, trains and planes.

The basic idea is simple, and there are very few variables: you want to go from somewhere, to somewhere else, at a certain moment.

The idea is that you throw in these initial parameters into the system, and then you spend some time viewing the pricing and possibly some characteristics about the trip itself, such as duration or transfers.

Somehow, after using several transportation services websites, I feel like I have spent most of my time learning how to actually use each different website, rather than evaluating the actual consequences of each possible transfer choice.

90 % of the websites involved the usage of a “wizard”, which reminded me more of some sort of obscure machine rather than something that has magical powers.

Recently, I poured my frustration with these “wizards” out on my significant other (who usually does a great job with putting up with my rants, hehe).

The question I had was: is it not possible to have a 3 click booking procedure ?

I mean, once again: where, when and how much….it shouldn’t take more right ?

You could even market it as “<insert any transportation services website here>’s famous 3-click booking !”…

And, funny enough, I recently stumbled upon this great paper: Magic Ink, INFORMATION SOFTWARE AND THE GRAPHICAL INTERFACE, by Bret Victor.

The paper is from 2006, but I believe it can still be fully applied to the majority of today’s user graphical interfaces offered on the net.

I have to say it is the most concise, straight to the point and clear paper I have ever read (and probably will ever read) on user graphical interfaces design.

It definitely is a must-read for anybody involved on any kind of information system with graphical user interfaces.

(The article can be found here, and, if you liked the paper, the rest of Bret’s content will probably be interesting for you also)

Here are some quotes which made me continuously nod in agreement while reading the paper, and having in mind all these wizard-infected and administrative-debris-contaminated websites:

• The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers
• A good graphic designer understands how to arrange information on the page so the reader can ask and answer questions, make comparisons, and draw conclusions.
• A person uses information software to construct and manipulate a model that is internal to the mind—a mental representation of information, and mentally prodding this model to reveal the optimal choice.
• I want to see how all of this information interrelates, make connections, and ultimately make a decision about what to do when.
• People are encouraged to consider software a machine—when a button is pressed, invisible gears grind and whir, and some internal or external state is changed. Manipulation of machines is the domain of industrial design.
• Navigation implies state. Software that can be navigated is software in which the user can get lost. The more navigation, the more corners to get stuck in. The more manipulable state, the more ways to wander into a “bad mode.” State is the primary reason people fear computers—stateful things can be broken.*
• …modern software is dominated by mechanical metaphors…with the user spending more time pulling down menus than studying and learning information…

It seams clear, with less interactions, less navigation, less states, it’s…better.

Bret reasons that, many of the informations that are obtained via interactions with the user, can be obtained without a need of annoying the user, and introducing more and more buttons and navigation.

(they can be obtained for example from the context, environment, history…)

Bret goes on to provide a concrete example, and, coincidence, it is an example of a potential user interface for a flight inquiry system:

So why is it that something like that is so difficult to find in the wild ?

There is another great quote that I also agree with:

• Software doesn’t have to be this way, but the solution will require a significant re-thinking of both the design process and the engineering platforms.

and:

• Good design makes people happy, but feature count makes people pay.

He continues on with:

• Today, software consumers demand technological features because software marketing presents features. Consumers ignore design because marketing ignores design. The cycle is vicious, but perhaps vulnerable too—some brilliant new software with engineering, design, and marketing all in sync may raise the bar for everyone.

Well, I also recently discovered Google Flights, which definitely looks like something towards the direction of something…nicer:

Is there hope ? Bret seems to think so:

“The future will be context-sensitive. The future will not be interactive.”

No related posts.

Tags: Bret Victor, Google Flights, GUI, HCI, UI