Windows XP has many structural shortcomings - it is inherently unstable to a degree, it is quite fragile, its DLL subsystem and registry are a disaster, and the upshot of all this is that simply installing an application can break the entire system beyond repair. But while these are serious issues, they are not my main source of irritation with Windows XP. No, my main (and most frequently recurring) annoyance with XP is its log-in system.
Whenever you mistype your password, immediately a text balloon pops up and sneers at you, "Did you forget your password?"
NO!!!! I did not forget my password! I just made a typo! Why in the name of all that's holy must you immediately assume that I am yet another moron and sneer at me for being an idiot who cannot even remember a simple password??? AAAAARGHHH!!!
Recently I have been exposed to another part of South Africa's great cultural heritage. It's called mampoer, and it's much like the alcoholic equivalent of a hand granade, coated with a thin layer of sugar.
The origins of mampoer are somewhat lost in the mists of time. Just about everyone claims to be the inventor of mampoer, from white settlers to descendants of the first peoples lving on the continent. Personally I suspect that mampoer was mostly discovered by, or at least thanks to, elephants. When the fruit of the marula tree, which is indigenous to Southern Africa, ripens, it quickly starts to ferment. The sweet odor given off by the fermenting fruit attracts elephants (and also baboons) from miles downwind. They feast on the fruits and occasionally eat so many of them that they become intoxicated, especially the baboons. (It takes a lot to intoxicate a three ton elephant.)
This was not lost on the people of Southern Africa, who used the spontaneous fermentation of various fruits to brew various mildly alcoholic drinks. Then the white settlers moved in, armed with a knowledge of distilling and a religion involving a deity who changed water into wine and not the other way around. It was about then that mampoer was born. The principle is simple: you take a large vat, fill it up with fruit, mash it up, and leave it for two weeks or so (judging how long it should be left to bubble is a bit of an art - too short and you don't get much alcohol; too long and it all goes bad). The fruit will ferment spontaneously, and all you then have to do is distill it. The result is a very fruity and very potent brandy, known as mampoer in Transvaal and as witblits ("white lightning") in the Cape.
Mampoer is produced and distributed somewhat discreetly, so as not to upset John Law, and comes in many different varieties. The variation is mostly due to the difference in fruits from one season to the next and one area to the next, as well as the climate during growth and fermentation, not to mention regional influences on the spontaneous fermentation itself. In short, no two batches of mampoer are ever alike - except by sheer coincidence. It also comes in a variety of strengths, typically from 50 to 65% or so, but occasionally even stronger - much stronger. (The varieties stronger than 50% are not really meant, or recommended, for imbibing undilutedly!)
So. I have obtained, as part of a deal I will not discuss, from a source I shall not mention, a few free bottles of 50% Fig and Mulberry mampoer. And I can report, ehm, I mean, I have been told, that it puts you to sleep very nicely. :-)
More than anything else, though, I wish I could have let my grandfather taste it. He's spent most of his life as a master distiller of the well-known Dutch gin (properly known as Genever or Jenever) and he would have found it very interesting indeed.
So.. here's to you, grandpa. Cheers!
The origins of mampoer are somewhat lost in the mists of time. Just about everyone claims to be the inventor of mampoer, from white settlers to descendants of the first peoples lving on the continent. Personally I suspect that mampoer was mostly discovered by, or at least thanks to, elephants. When the fruit of the marula tree, which is indigenous to Southern Africa, ripens, it quickly starts to ferment. The sweet odor given off by the fermenting fruit attracts elephants (and also baboons) from miles downwind. They feast on the fruits and occasionally eat so many of them that they become intoxicated, especially the baboons. (It takes a lot to intoxicate a three ton elephant.)
This was not lost on the people of Southern Africa, who used the spontaneous fermentation of various fruits to brew various mildly alcoholic drinks. Then the white settlers moved in, armed with a knowledge of distilling and a religion involving a deity who changed water into wine and not the other way around. It was about then that mampoer was born. The principle is simple: you take a large vat, fill it up with fruit, mash it up, and leave it for two weeks or so (judging how long it should be left to bubble is a bit of an art - too short and you don't get much alcohol; too long and it all goes bad). The fruit will ferment spontaneously, and all you then have to do is distill it. The result is a very fruity and very potent brandy, known as mampoer in Transvaal and as witblits ("white lightning") in the Cape.
Mampoer is produced and distributed somewhat discreetly, so as not to upset John Law, and comes in many different varieties. The variation is mostly due to the difference in fruits from one season to the next and one area to the next, as well as the climate during growth and fermentation, not to mention regional influences on the spontaneous fermentation itself. In short, no two batches of mampoer are ever alike - except by sheer coincidence. It also comes in a variety of strengths, typically from 50 to 65% or so, but occasionally even stronger - much stronger. (The varieties stronger than 50% are not really meant, or recommended, for imbibing undilutedly!)
So. I have obtained, as part of a deal I will not discuss, from a source I shall not mention, a few free bottles of 50% Fig and Mulberry mampoer. And I can report, ehm, I mean, I have been told, that it puts you to sleep very nicely. :-)
More than anything else, though, I wish I could have let my grandfather taste it. He's spent most of his life as a master distiller of the well-known Dutch gin (properly known as Genever or Jenever) and he would have found it very interesting indeed.
So.. here's to you, grandpa. Cheers!
There is a theory in robotics first proposed in a 1970 paper in the journal Energy by the roboticist Masahiro Mori. In short the theory states that as you get closer to making a robot that resembles a human, the more unsettling it will be. When our perception of human attributes is visualized, it is a curve that tracks upward when we begin to encounter more human-like machines.1
We reach a point where there is a steep drop-off. It indicates a point of being too human-like, with something that is not quite right. It triggers psychological alarms that detect the very subtle and unsettling differences associating the mind with things like death. It’s the reason movies (with computer generated people) like “The Polar Express” and “Beowulf” were blamed for poor box-office returns.2 This disturbance in our perception — before we reach the perfect likeness of a human being – is the Uncanny Valley.
In design we have been continually moving toward similar territory. There is more realism in user interface today due to factors like faster computers. As digital products have become more sophisticated applications there is a need to create controls and interface elements with clear affordance. This means adding touches of 3D through lighting effects, shadows, textures, and so on.
There are a few side affects to this surge of realism. I think that there is an Uncanny Valley in interface design that some Websites and applications have landed themselves in through approaching interface design in the wrong way. The Uncanny Valley of interface design might not cause something disturbing, but the user experience can be compromised.
As I see it the rationale behind using them is:
1) It’s easy. No thinking involved. Just add a texture, and it’s “designed” now. It’s 99% imitation with 1% perspiration.
2) They are designing eye candy that will be recognized by other designers as “great design”
3) They don’t know the user and why the effect was used in the other places they saw it. These effects bring their interface into the Uncanny Valley of UI where they seem like the other Websites or apps, but something is off.
What many of these designers don’t realize is that they are doing their client a disservice. Users don’t come to the site or open the application to stare at a UI. They come with needs to find certain content or to complete a task. They have other things they’d rather be doing like walking their dog. They aren’t designers and into the details of every pixel. They could care less if the text has the letterpress effect, unless it hinders their experience.
It’s hard as a designer to find examples of good design. What I mean by that is good design that isn’t eye candy targeted for designers. There is some really beautiful work on blogs and galleries. Of course it’s beautiful though, it’s made for people like me. Sometimes I feel like we’re all so wrapped up in our design world and talk about how crappy some sites look and that we could do much better. What we really mean is that we would design it so we would like it better when we visit/use it.
I went to a large creative conference a while back and saw some really inspirational stuff. I felt reinvigorated after coming back to work. When I sat down to write a report to basically justify the company’s investment for me to go, I went blank. None of the information could be applied to what I did on a daily basis. I realized that the conference was just for designers to feel cool and see things only they would like. It wasn’t anything that would really benefit the users or clients I designed for. That seems to be a lot of the type of work that is praised, as well as the designers who work on it.
Creating a word processing app that looks like a typewriter or making the interface for a cooking app look like a real kitchen is driving it right into the Uncanny Valley. It becomes design for designs sake and we lose all sense of purpose for the application. I can guarantee though, that if you put a screenshot up in a certain designer snapshot gallery, you would shoot to the top of the popular list.
If you design something that looks like a book, then users will expect it to function like a book. With a book you lose some of the power and functionality you have with a digital product where it wouldn’t make sense to have a scroll bar on the page and the pages would restack to show your place in the book. It is interesting to see that although the iPad is capable of richer graphics, the Kindle still seems to be a preferred e-reader, with Kindle outselling iBooks 60 to 1.4
If we review the use of smaller interface elements, like buttons or symbols, we find the same holds true for them. There needs to be a balance of detail and simplification. If we go too far in either direction the meaning of the symbol becomes convoluted. With symbols and other UI elements we should be trying to communicate concepts, not replicate an exact physical object.5
It comes down to being subtle and rational with using realism. The interface should not be full of excise UI elements that force a user through hoops because it looks great. If you use a metaphor make sure it is strong and helps to propel the user through the Website or application.
However, think about how many apps users have to do this with. That’s a lot of apps to have to relearn how to navigate. If you think about a DVD’s navigation, it’s a similar thing. They are about the experience, there’s no question. Sometimes I put in a DVD and I can get around easily to find a scene or adjust settings. Other times it is hard to figure out because the designer decided to try and be overly clever.
Even if the application is something for our enjoyment, we still have tasks we need to accomplish. If I go to respond to someone on Twitter, or purchase a song on iTunes, they are still tasks. If the iTunes store looked like jukebox I am certain that the playfulness would get old once I came back the second time to purchase music.
It is so easy to love a certain effect and want to use that everywhere. Not all projects need to have the selections sitting on a perfectly lit wooden bookshelf. On one hand we want to be creative and make something that is appealing and can sell the product. On the other side we have to question the cost of that approach on the experience itself and balance style and function with purpose.
1) The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis – Popular Mechanics
2) Into the Uncanny Valley – Seed Magazine
3) Designing for iPad: Reality Check – iA
4) Kindle Outselling iBooks 60 To 1 – The Next Web
5) Realism in UI Design – UX Magazine
6) Usability Ain’t Everything – A Response to Jakob Nielsen’s iPad Usability Study – Johnny Holland
We reach a point where there is a steep drop-off. It indicates a point of being too human-like, with something that is not quite right. It triggers psychological alarms that detect the very subtle and unsettling differences associating the mind with things like death. It’s the reason movies (with computer generated people) like “The Polar Express” and “Beowulf” were blamed for poor box-office returns.2 This disturbance in our perception — before we reach the perfect likeness of a human being – is the Uncanny Valley.
In design we have been continually moving toward similar territory. There is more realism in user interface today due to factors like faster computers. As digital products have become more sophisticated applications there is a need to create controls and interface elements with clear affordance. This means adding touches of 3D through lighting effects, shadows, textures, and so on.
Cockpit app interface for MacOS
There are a few side affects to this surge of realism. I think that there is an Uncanny Valley in interface design that some Websites and applications have landed themselves in through approaching interface design in the wrong way. The Uncanny Valley of interface design might not cause something disturbing, but the user experience can be compromised.
The Good, The Bad and The Trendy
It’s no secret that I speak often and loudly about trends. The real issue I have with trends is when they are used for the wrong reasons. There are certain effects that have become just a default tool for many designers.As I see it the rationale behind using them is:
1) It’s easy. No thinking involved. Just add a texture, and it’s “designed” now. It’s 99% imitation with 1% perspiration.
2) They are designing eye candy that will be recognized by other designers as “great design”
3) They don’t know the user and why the effect was used in the other places they saw it. These effects bring their interface into the Uncanny Valley of UI where they seem like the other Websites or apps, but something is off.
What many of these designers don’t realize is that they are doing their client a disservice. Users don’t come to the site or open the application to stare at a UI. They come with needs to find certain content or to complete a task. They have other things they’d rather be doing like walking their dog. They aren’t designers and into the details of every pixel. They could care less if the text has the letterpress effect, unless it hinders their experience.
It’s hard as a designer to find examples of good design. What I mean by that is good design that isn’t eye candy targeted for designers. There is some really beautiful work on blogs and galleries. Of course it’s beautiful though, it’s made for people like me. Sometimes I feel like we’re all so wrapped up in our design world and talk about how crappy some sites look and that we could do much better. What we really mean is that we would design it so we would like it better when we visit/use it.
I went to a large creative conference a while back and saw some really inspirational stuff. I felt reinvigorated after coming back to work. When I sat down to write a report to basically justify the company’s investment for me to go, I went blank. None of the information could be applied to what I did on a daily basis. I realized that the conference was just for designers to feel cool and see things only they would like. It wasn’t anything that would really benefit the users or clients I designed for. That seems to be a lot of the type of work that is praised, as well as the designers who work on it.
Getting Real with Users
Apple has been pushing realism into its interface design for a while now. From glossy buttons, to the metal chrome in iTunes, and now with the guidelines for the iPad. Some of it makes a lot of sense. With the touch interface you want it to be inviting and feel familiar to the user. A screenshot of a notepad application that looks like a real notepad will probably sell a lot better than one that looks clean and digital. Some designers have taken this lead the wrong way.Pushing the leather buttons on the Calendar app feels very much like real leather buttons would feel: Tacky. — iAIn the article “Designing for iPad: Reality Check,”3 Information Architects (iA) go through a lot of the feelings and explorations they did when starting to design for the iPad. They found that going too far with the realism just brought it into the realm of the Uncanny Valley of interface design. The interface seemed to be more kitsch and gimmicky than an effective way to present content to a user. The interface can get to a point of realism, yet fall short. Real books lay a certain way when they are open. Objects don’t always have six perfect beams of light on them.
The Apple Calender app interface
Creating a word processing app that looks like a typewriter or making the interface for a cooking app look like a real kitchen is driving it right into the Uncanny Valley. It becomes design for designs sake and we lose all sense of purpose for the application. I can guarantee though, that if you put a screenshot up in a certain designer snapshot gallery, you would shoot to the top of the popular list.
If you design something that looks like a book, then users will expect it to function like a book. With a book you lose some of the power and functionality you have with a digital product where it wouldn’t make sense to have a scroll bar on the page and the pages would restack to show your place in the book. It is interesting to see that although the iPad is capable of richer graphics, the Kindle still seems to be a preferred e-reader, with Kindle outselling iBooks 60 to 1.4
The iBooks interface
The Kindle interface
If we review the use of smaller interface elements, like buttons or symbols, we find the same holds true for them. There needs to be a balance of detail and simplification. If we go too far in either direction the meaning of the symbol becomes convoluted. With symbols and other UI elements we should be trying to communicate concepts, not replicate an exact physical object.5
Image from Realism in UI Design on UX Magazine
Playfulness vs. Usefulness
Realism in interface design is a delicate balancing act. I love a lot of the playfulness in the new apps I’ve seen. I think that the reason they work well is that the interface doesn’t overwhelm the experience. I’ve seen arguments that being a bit playful with the interface is a good thing. It enhances learning the application and engages the user. I completely agree.6However, think about how many apps users have to do this with. That’s a lot of apps to have to relearn how to navigate. If you think about a DVD’s navigation, it’s a similar thing. They are about the experience, there’s no question. Sometimes I put in a DVD and I can get around easily to find a scene or adjust settings. Other times it is hard to figure out because the designer decided to try and be overly clever.
Even if the application is something for our enjoyment, we still have tasks we need to accomplish. If I go to respond to someone on Twitter, or purchase a song on iTunes, they are still tasks. If the iTunes store looked like jukebox I am certain that the playfulness would get old once I came back the second time to purchase music.
It is so easy to love a certain effect and want to use that everywhere. Not all projects need to have the selections sitting on a perfectly lit wooden bookshelf. On one hand we want to be creative and make something that is appealing and can sell the product. On the other side we have to question the cost of that approach on the experience itself and balance style and function with purpose.
1) The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis – Popular Mechanics
2) Into the Uncanny Valley – Seed Magazine
3) Designing for iPad: Reality Check – iA
4) Kindle Outselling iBooks 60 To 1 – The Next Web
5) Realism in UI Design – UX Magazine
6) Usability Ain’t Everything – A Response to Jakob Nielsen’s iPad Usability Study – Johnny Holland
From the earliest graphical user interfaces, to the latest pixel perfect work seen in apps, the most basic elements of the interface have remained pretty much the same. For example the button: It has gone from a flat rectangle, to a beveled rectangle, to a beveled rectangle with a gradient.1
One of the first systems to fully utilize a graphical user interface (GUI) was the Xerox Star (Xerox 8010 Information System). It followed close to the metaphor of an office using folders and documents, and the user would click on icons and open windows… pretty much what we do today. The Star ended up becoming a commercial failure.
From there, the more recognizable players like Apple and Microsoft came into the game. They were able to evolve the interface into what we know and use today.
So, it seems that interface design has remained a bit stagnant all these years, until today. Exciting designs and fresh experiences are being built around us. A rich, graphic realism is pouring into our work. It’s a new day for design. But wait, it’s not so new after all. In fact, there was one man who dared to see the interface in a different way years before many designers were even able to utter their first words. He saw more potential in the basic screen than just rectangles; he saw a design playground.
Most designers look at screenshots of Kai’s design work and refer to it as kitsch, discounting it as mere eye candy for the time. I would imagine if Jakob Nielsen had nightmares about interfaces, they would look exactly like Kai’s Spheroid Designer. If we withhold judgment of “good design” and think about that time in the history of interface design, it’s hard to not appreciate that unique vision.
When most interfaces looked more like terrible clip art, he dared to push the boundaries of digital design. We see the remnants of his influence splashed across the Web. The staple design techniques like transparency, rounded corners, drop-shadows were in his products around 20 years ago.
The tools that Kai created didn’t feel or act like tools. They made people want to reach out and start using them. The off-the-wall interfaces hid a real technology and power beneath their surface. There was no developer’s mental model present here. There was probably not even a user’s mental model to be considered either. It was a Disneyland of interfaces that simply welcomed you to its world to stop in and play for a while.2
“[…] the camcorder is not a shortcut to Citizen Kane, it is an immensely beautiful and important tool to preserve memories. In that sense I do not like my tools to be approached as one-click-art short cuts to Mona Lisa, but as beautiful aids for playing with your own brain. As such, I’ll compare them to computer games any day.
The most unimaginative misuses are visible from ten yards away, while the subtle little glow and soft texture may be almost completely invisible. […] Surely the tools have a certain look and that can lead to sameness, but that’s actually more of a social problem than one of technology: conformity in style and flat emulations of the existing stuff are the common practice in 95 percent of all books or movies or records. Sad, yes. But I am always happy to see the best escape over the top.”3
There will always be designers that latch on to a tool or technique and keep us in Flatland. The designers with a vision will break away from the rest of the pack because they are open to possibilities. Sure, they might push us straight into the next wave of sameness. We will certainly look back on today’s popular designs with the same disdain that we do on the “Web 2.0” styles. That’s guaranteed.
We can’t forget that all design is the result of a person, not a tool. Whether or not you admire or dislike the work of a designer like Kai, you have to respect them for moving us past the stagnant Flatland of design and showing us new possibilities.
1) UX Concepts – Rethinking the Button – Dax Pandhi
2) The Genie in the Machine – The Atlantic Online
3) Artist at Play – The Atlantic Online
One of the first systems to fully utilize a graphical user interface (GUI) was the Xerox Star (Xerox 8010 Information System). It followed close to the metaphor of an office using folders and documents, and the user would click on icons and open windows… pretty much what we do today. The Star ended up becoming a commercial failure.
Xerox 8010 Information System
From there, the more recognizable players like Apple and Microsoft came into the game. They were able to evolve the interface into what we know and use today.
So, it seems that interface design has remained a bit stagnant all these years, until today. Exciting designs and fresh experiences are being built around us. A rich, graphic realism is pouring into our work. It’s a new day for design. But wait, it’s not so new after all. In fact, there was one man who dared to see the interface in a different way years before many designers were even able to utter their first words. He saw more potential in the basic screen than just rectangles; he saw a design playground.
A Gooey (GUI) Pioneer
Kai Krause is considered an influential pioneer in interface design. He built many successful products that encouraged exploration and learning where most software at the time was mostly bare bones and unengaging. Kai breathed a new life into software design that was, until then, mostly dormant.Mac OS 9|
Most designers look at screenshots of Kai’s design work and refer to it as kitsch, discounting it as mere eye candy for the time. I would imagine if Jakob Nielsen had nightmares about interfaces, they would look exactly like Kai’s Spheroid Designer. If we withhold judgment of “good design” and think about that time in the history of interface design, it’s hard to not appreciate that unique vision.
Kai Power Tools Spheroid Designer
When most interfaces looked more like terrible clip art, he dared to push the boundaries of digital design. We see the remnants of his influence splashed across the Web. The staple design techniques like transparency, rounded corners, drop-shadows were in his products around 20 years ago.
Kai Power Tools Lens f/x 3.0 over a Photoshop window
The tools that Kai created didn’t feel or act like tools. They made people want to reach out and start using them. The off-the-wall interfaces hid a real technology and power beneath their surface. There was no developer’s mental model present here. There was probably not even a user’s mental model to be considered either. It was a Disneyland of interfaces that simply welcomed you to its world to stop in and play for a while.2
Curse of the Sameness
The sameness that we currently find in design is pervasive. Sometimes it feels like the same designer worked on every site or application. What’s interesting is this isn’t a new problem. Although Kai pushed the limits of what was done in interface design, he ironically ended up creating another period of stagnant trends in design. The software he helped build was blamed for creating this string of “bad design.” When asked about this, he responded:“[…] the camcorder is not a shortcut to Citizen Kane, it is an immensely beautiful and important tool to preserve memories. In that sense I do not like my tools to be approached as one-click-art short cuts to Mona Lisa, but as beautiful aids for playing with your own brain. As such, I’ll compare them to computer games any day.
The most unimaginative misuses are visible from ten yards away, while the subtle little glow and soft texture may be almost completely invisible. […] Surely the tools have a certain look and that can lead to sameness, but that’s actually more of a social problem than one of technology: conformity in style and flat emulations of the existing stuff are the common practice in 95 percent of all books or movies or records. Sad, yes. But I am always happy to see the best escape over the top.”3
Escaping Flatland
The story “Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions,” is about a square living in a two-dimensional world. The square is visited by a three-dimensional sphere which he cannot comprehend until he is educated by the sphere of the existence of this other dimension called “Spaceland.” The square’s mind is then opened to new possibilities of other dimensions.There will always be designers that latch on to a tool or technique and keep us in Flatland. The designers with a vision will break away from the rest of the pack because they are open to possibilities. Sure, they might push us straight into the next wave of sameness. We will certainly look back on today’s popular designs with the same disdain that we do on the “Web 2.0” styles. That’s guaranteed.
We can’t forget that all design is the result of a person, not a tool. Whether or not you admire or dislike the work of a designer like Kai, you have to respect them for moving us past the stagnant Flatland of design and showing us new possibilities.
1) UX Concepts – Rethinking the Button – Dax Pandhi
2) The Genie in the Machine – The Atlantic Online
3) Artist at Play – The Atlantic Online
I wrote previously about an awsome plugin to give Emacs Vim-style undo trees.
Vim's undo trees are the best thing since sliced bread, but the interface for browsing through the tree is not pleasant. The Emacs undo-tree library has a way to visualize the tree and move through it with your keyboard, which solves this problem.
But now, thanks to Steve Losh, Vim has an undo-tree visualizer too. Delicious. Though it's still beta and promises to eat your babies, it seems to work pretty well. I think the diff view of the changes for the undo is a really good idea.
Thus continues the eternal Vim/Emacs arms race.
Vim's undo trees are the best thing since sliced bread, but the interface for browsing through the tree is not pleasant. The Emacs undo-tree library has a way to visualize the tree and move through it with your keyboard, which solves this problem.
But now, thanks to Steve Losh, Vim has an undo-tree visualizer too. Delicious. Though it's still beta and promises to eat your babies, it seems to work pretty well. I think the diff view of the changes for the undo is a really good idea.
Thus continues the eternal Vim/Emacs arms race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
