- Email: [email protected]
User Interface Design: Technology Led or User Driven
Copyright © IFAC Man-Machine Systems. The Hague. The Netherlands. 1992
USER INTERFACE DESIGN: TECHNOLOGY LED OR USER DRIVEN Chairman: J.L. Alty
The key issue in this round table discussion was how far the user could be at the "centre" of User Interface Design. On the one hand a user should dictate the interface requirements but on the other hand how can a naive user demand appropriate facilities when not familiar with the technology. A model of technological advance was suggested where user requirements led to technological advance which then suggested further user requirements leading to further technological advance etc .. However, it was felt that there were some advances which were solely technology driven - often it is the other way around: technology is looking for applications. It was also true that technologists, playing with new tools, sometimes come up with innovative approaches to interface design (e.g. the spreadsheet).
The solution seemed to be better education of users about technological opportunities, but it was an open question as to how much technological knowledge was needed. Users also need time to assimilate new ideas. The GRADIENT project was a good example. It took three years for the users to be convinced that the technology offered new worthwhile approaches. However, once the users were convinced, the introduction of the technology was more effective. The similarity with planning changes in ones own house was highlighted to illustrate the differences between a user-driven or technology-led situation. A house holder is assisted by an array of experts - plumbers, architects, builders, joiners. In the technology led situation these people form themselves into a committee and tell the householder what he can have. In the user-led case the user decides upon advice from the experts. It is common to act in the latter way when supervising house alterations. The former situation. however, is still very common in computing. The difference is probably because we are better educated in what we want or can do with house technology than with computer technology. The computer situation is further complicated by a vast set of manufacturers trying to make money through the introduction of new technology. Such people are not driven by user needs and spend a great deal of their time trying to generate needs for technology. Although this happens in other fields the rate of change is much more rapid in computing. The issue is therefore not so much one of educating users. but at what level of abstraction should they be educated. The discussion concluded with a heated discussion on this topic without resolution.
285
USER INTERFACE DESIGN: TECHNOLOGY LED OR USER DRIVEN Chairman: J.L. Alty
The key issue in this round table discussion was how far the user could be at the "centre" of User Interface Design. On the one hand a user should dictate the interface requirements but on the other hand how can a naive user demand appropriate facilities when not familiar with the technology. A model of technological advance was suggested where user requirements led to technological advance which then suggested further user requirements leading to further technological advance etc .. However, it was felt that there were some advances which were solely technology driven - often it is the other way around: technology is looking for applications. It was also true that technologists, playing with new tools, sometimes come up with innovative approaches to interface design (e.g. the spreadsheet).
The solution seemed to be better education of users about technological opportunities, but it was an open question as to how much technological knowledge was needed. Users also need time to assimilate new ideas. The GRADIENT project was a good example. It took three years for the users to be convinced that the technology offered new worthwhile approaches. However, once the users were convinced, the introduction of the technology was more effective. The similarity with planning changes in ones own house was highlighted to illustrate the differences between a user-driven or technology-led situation. A house holder is assisted by an array of experts - plumbers, architects, builders, joiners. In the technology led situation these people form themselves into a committee and tell the householder what he can have. In the user-led case the user decides upon advice from the experts. It is common to act in the latter way when supervising house alterations. The former situation. however, is still very common in computing. The difference is probably because we are better educated in what we want or can do with house technology than with computer technology. The computer situation is further complicated by a vast set of manufacturers trying to make money through the introduction of new technology. Such people are not driven by user needs and spend a great deal of their time trying to generate needs for technology. Although this happens in other fields the rate of change is much more rapid in computing. The issue is therefore not so much one of educating users. but at what level of abstraction should they be educated. The discussion concluded with a heated discussion on this topic without resolution.
285