hand of action

I have been meaning to write this for some time now.

Awhile back I noticed something. - Why am I being told to create rollover states for everything on the web? In fact most sites use rollovers, more so than they use active (pressed) states.

Hover around on the web, and you will see that almost anything clickable changes when you rollover or hover on it.

Now move to non-web software and try it. You are actually hard pressed to find hover states outside of the web.

The rollover is all about affordances right? After all, how will you know if you can click on something without it. But the desktop existed long before the web, and we have been doing fine without it. And then you look in the real world, and nothing has such a thing. How do you know you can press a button on your DVD player? It looks like a button. And when you press it, it moves/clicks.

So I know, i know. Hover states do add reassurance of the affordance. But the active (pressed) state does much more than that, as it shows action when you take action. It is very quick, but that adds a ton to people’s belief that they just clicked on something, the active state is software’s nice click feeling you get from pressing a button.

So if you have a website with hover states, and no active states. Do yourself a favor –  Change that hover to an active, and you can keep the reassurance of the affordance by changing the cursor icon to a hand on hover.

Need more convincing/reason? iPads, and other touch systems are becoming much more popular, and the hover state will be a thing of the past. If you don’t have an active state, you can expect your touch-centric users to be frustrated.

And before you call me out on this. I know, I know. My sites doesn’t use active states. My site is old… I didn’t know much better. And I didn’t even make this blog theme =)

Im Back. But not back

I was on vacation last week, and just got home. But sadly I brought sickness with me.

I had a long talk with a friend (ben) while I was gone that started with the same old question about the “value of software” but soon moved to value in general.

We were at the “The Art of Shaving” store looking at finely designed razors when I asked the saleswoman if I could take a closer look at a razor they had showcased behind glass. I was expecting it to be light aluminum (the finish seemed to be) but was delighted to feel the weight of steel.

So as Ben and I talked while walking around in search for ice cream and creps, and  I mentioned this razor we had seen earlier that day. I was telling him how I was in search of weight in software, (You know, that extra sensory-nudge that adds value to the product) when ben moved it away from software completely. Ben had me take a step back and unknowingly ask myself “why is it that the weight gives the razor value?”. He then went on about how value is only in the eye of the beholder, and is only in the context of your life. The things you associate with value give an item value. But the item itself has no real value on its own. Things you don’t know, have no value to you, and so on.

So the perception of value, right? The razor felt more valuable because it was heavy. But weight is no more valuable than color, unless through society we associate it with value.

So my wedding ring. I looked at a lot of rings before I decided on one. What I got was a very inexpensive tungsten carbide steel band. To me it had 3 things I was looking for. The color, shine, and hardness. I didn’t want  it getting scratched, and I really like the color/look of polished steel. But the cost of it compared to any other metal used is nothing. If I got anything else, it wouldn’t have met the goal of the ring. But it lacks one thing needed to give it a higher price, right? Of course I speak of rarity. Platinum and gold are much rarer, and therefore have higher value, even though they scratch easily, and so on.

But what about palladium? Palladium is a precious metal 30 times rarer than gold. It shines and looks similar to platinum, but is less than a third of the cost of gold. So what we have is something that on paper should be of a much higher value, but isn’t because people don’t see the value in it as they do gold. This is known by Dan Ariely as “The Fallacy of Supply and Demand”

Granted, the weight of the razor played to my memories of weight equating quality, but this is very rarely actually the case, and if we look in the consumer electronics area, it is often is the complete opposite.

I think what happens is that we build personal dictionaries of overly simple ways of determining value in the objects we interact with. It allows us to make decisions about what we want without spending too much time hashing over it. And even though these dictionaries are ofter wrong, and many parts are actually dictated by society, we knowing accept this because it beats spending a week to make each decision. I know that steel is inexpensive, but I still get the feeling of quality.

We as designers use these commonalities about the perception of value all the time when working in the physical world. They help us craft better experiences for our users. So may the problem is just that software is too new, and our dictionaries are just empty.

Then the question becomes: How do we help build the perception of value around software?

What about my TiVo?

Have you ever used a TiVo? Not a DVR, but a real TiVo? This may be the best example of interaction design I can think of, and it has been under my nose for a good 10 years. (I got my first one when it was brand new).

The tivo is… Well to me it is a system. But let’s break this down. The tivo is a great remote, pretty generic hardware, software running on it, and a subscription service. But when you talk about it, you really are talking about the entire thing. I think regular DVR customers may not understand this, but if you replaced the remote with something generic, you just have a great DVR and lousy remote. If you replaced the software, you have a so so DVR with a great remote, and if you replaced the hardware or service, you have a tivo with an ugly box. I think most DVR owners think of the box as their DVR but tivo is the system not the item.

Just to note. The remote is not special. It does not do anything a normal remote SHOULD do, but it does do something most remotes do not do… work well, and allow you to use the system well.

So anyways… This could be software I really enjoy using, and actually rave about. It has actually made me hate watching regular tv.

But what is it about this that makes it so great to use? When watching live tv, it is completely transparent. Changing channels is actually made easier, as you can read what is on other channels before you leave that one. I haven’t channel surfed since I bought it. But really, when it comes down to it, it is the fact that hitting that tivo button at the top of my remote brings me to a list of the shows I want to watch, and have been recorded for me that makes it great. (I know other DVRs do this too)

So when I turn on the tv, im not doing so because I want to watch just anything, Im turning it on because I want to watch something I like. And tivo turns my tv into something that does just that. So in the end the tivo, actually just makes my tv a better tv, and that’s why I love it.

But… doing this is half the battle. Now that we have enabled the experience, we cant ruin it. We need to ensure follow through for that experience reflection. So this is where the the typical DVR tends to break down. When you begin to watch your show, the tivo software disappears and the tv takes over until you see something you want to see again or a commercial comes on and you want to skip it. Tivo went through such great lengths to make sure that this works so well, you will never notice it.

Fast forwarding on a tivo has three settings of speed as many other systems. But it is when you hit play again that this really shines. Tivo knows that you hit play not when you know the commercials about to end, but when you see the show has started up again. So instead of leaving you a few seconds into the show, it actually jumps back a few seconds knowing your reaction time is not perfect. So when you hit play again, you see maybe the last 2 seconds of that last commercial, and never miss the show. It is these subtle polished areas that make tivo shine.

To recap… What is it that makes it so great? It gets out of my way when I want it to, helps me accomplish my goal faster and easier than without it, enables a better experience, and doesn’t ruin it in the middle.

But sadly, with it being so great, I have had several, and have upgraded through the years.

I still feel no attachment to it.

————————————————————

If you are interested in physical electronic products, and why we lack connection to them, I highly recommend following Matt Cottam – http://www.openarts.org/matt/

Did I miss the point?

A few posts ago I wrote about wanting software that was as nice to use as a great steak knife. But last night I was out with a friend, and after talking it over with him, I think I may have missed the point, or what really happened.

Donald Norman talked about three ways we experience products: visceral, behavioral, and reflective. Visceral: being your initial feelings about the object, behavioral: using the object, and reflective: your memory about the object.

Well looking back at the steak knife, I believe I assumed that it was the steak knife that I was impressed with. But I paid no attention to its build, its weight, hold, material or anything that would fall under the visceral. When I started the use, it was just another knife. But in its use, the experience it allowed, transformed the knife into something great.

Objects rarely have value attached to them without some sort of physical interaction. Diamonds, rubies,  and other precious materials’ value is solely in the visceral, but almost everything else gains value on contact. Bang and Olufsen have been know to add weight to their products because the weight adds perceived value. Car doors are design to sound good when closed because it has typically been an area where we assume quality.

I believe that Donald would consider these examples to be part of the behavioral, but I disagree. I think that using a car door, and making assumptions based on the sound, or lifting a remote and assuming value based on weight are part of the visceral. It’s really their ability to do their job well that is the behavioral? Maybe not… let me rethink that.

Yes, it was the knifes ability to do its job so well that made me love it. But as I stated above. It was actually the experience that it afforded that transformed the knife from “just a knife” to “Wow! that’s a nice knife”. So maybe the sound of the door and the weight of the remote are just some of the first experiences you have while using the product. It’s all about the experience. And this isnt something software lacks, is it?

Granted you cant add weight to software to change its perceived value, and the sound really wont attest to its value or build quality. So how do we add value to software? The same way we do with physical products… Experience.

I have had great experiences with software before. So why don’t I feel connected to it in the same way I do the knife?

Just something to think about: Can you look at or use a piece of software and  assume an accurate cost? What is it about software that makes you feel its value or cost? Complexity, functions, look and feel?