
The best interface is no interface - ropiku
http://www.cooper.com/journal/2012/08/the-best-interface-is-no-interface.html/
======
georgemcbay
I think he took this way too far but I can get behind the core of it. I'm
especially dismayed by touchscreen interfaces in cars. Give me DIALS and
KNOBS. They are SO MUCH BETTER than a touchscreen because I can easily use
them accurately without taking my eyes off the road. No amount of touchscreen
haptic feedback will ever make up for this.

If you must embrace high-tech in the car cockpit, voice control is fine (if it
works well), but touchscreens are horrible in this environment.

~~~
astral303
+1. Give me KNOBS or give me death!

Take the infamous iDrive example. For all the good design that BMW puts into
their cars, it all suddenly went out of the window when it came to software.
It's like when the software engineers showed up, everyone else threw up their
hands and said "take it away--we don't care how poorly usable it is, for it is
'cool' and that's what people want."

For example, if you wish to change a radio station to another preset, and you
have the misfortune of being elsewhere in the touchscreen UI, you must first
navigate to the Radio screen, then switch to Presets (working off slightly
hazy memory here, so pardon inexactness if there is one). How is that better
than just whacking the button for the preset # on the radio?

A must read-book for any techie, in my opinion, is "The Inmates Are Running
the Asylum" by Alan Cooper. It gave me a new perspective on computing. If you
do any kind of software design that is used by a human, you must read it.

So that book starts out with "Riddles for the Information Age" and asks you
what happens when you cross a computer with: an airplane, a camera, an alarm
clock, a car, etc. As you might guess, the answer is that things did not go
well.

~~~
nkurz
Not sure if you noticed, but the linked article is on <http://cooper.com>,
which was founded by Alan Cooper.

Ironically and incredibly, with current Chrome on Mac, I am unable to scroll
to the bottom of the page on their site describing the book:
<http://www.cooper.com/#about:books>

Kindly, the old working version of their site is still available:
<http://www.cooper.com/about/books.html>

~~~
hrktb
><http://www.cooper.com/#about:books> It's horrible on safari as well and a
little better on firefox (mac also), but the "Experiencing technical issues?"
link to the plain vanilla version at the bottom left hints at the experimental
state of the interface.

------
bulletsvshumans
I look forward to a future where many natural interactions are improved
through computer augmentation. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of today's
computing interactions, you need some way of conveying more information than
what is naturally present.

In any well-designed interaction it needs to be clear what you (the user) can
do, and what the state of the system you're interacting with is. 'No UI' only
works when you're augmenting a system where these two things are already
clear. For instance, in the case of the car door system, you already know that
you can open the car with your key, and you can tell when the car door
unlocks.

When I open a new app for the first time, I don't already know everything it
can do. I need to see the interface to know what's possible. And I need to see
feedback to know that I'm making progress.

I've heard that many Nest owners are actually a bit disappointed in its smart
features, as there's no way to tell why it's doing the things it's doing (why
did it just make it cold in here?) Without a way of communicating its
reasoning, people are suspicious of its "father knows best" recommendations.
Even Amazon tells you roughly why it's recommending something to you.

And Voice UIs don't count as no UI. In fact, they're often a very poor
interface, as they convey information much more slowly and invasively than a
visual interface, and there's no a priori way to know what voice commands a
system accepts.

------
pwf
The Google Wallet example is entirely disingenuous. Compare these two:

1\. Get (real) wallet.

2\. Find the right card.

3\. Swipe the card.

4\. Press 'Debit' on the machine.

5\. Press 'No' to the cash back prompt.

6\. Enter my PIN.

Versus:

1\. Get out phone.

2\. Wake the screen.

3\. Touch the phone to the machine.

4\. Enter my PIN on the Google Wallet prompt that appears.

5\. Confirm the payment.

If they were to list the steps for paying with a normal credit card would
their list include "find the teller's hand so you can give them the card"?

Edit: How do I <ol>?

~~~
greggman
I'm used to the NFC in Japan since like 2006

1\. Get out phone

2\. Tap phone on sensor

The end.

The NFC system in Japan (standard on nearly all phones except iPhone) works by
putting virtual cash into some chip that doesn't need the phone. In fact you
can do it with your train pass which was the first way they did it and then
later added the same chip to the phone's case.

So, no need to turn on the phone or choose an app. To add cash to the chip
there is an app so basically you add $50-$200 and then don't worry about it
for a week or month.

Since they started as train passes you can also rid all the trains, subways
and buses (take a out phone, tap on sensor, done).

You can even reserve seats for long distance trains on your phone, walk on the
train, there's a sensor above the seat you tap to "check in". Tap it again to
check out if you want to switch seats.

The chip holds all the transactions on it. My 2006 Sony Vaio has a reader
built in for the chip which can import that transactions for things like
expense reports. I would guess that more current phones have apps for reading
the chip.

~~~
shadowfox
Interesting. How do they handle stolen phones?

~~~
greggman
The same as stolen wallets. You only lose the cash on the phone. The thief
can't get more money from the phone as that would require passwords he doesn't
know.

------
mrestko
I cannot believe that the Mini shows Twitter updates on the speedometer. That
is terrifying.

~~~
jkaljundi
Quite many people read e-mail, twitter and facebook while driving. Having it
in front of you is much better than in the palm of your hand. Even if you
should not do it at all.

~~~
aashay
And by making this sort of behavior more accessible, they're part of the
problem, not the solution.

~~~
jrockway
That's debatable. It's kind of like banning meth: people want it anyway, so
they blow up suburban houses trying to make it. If they could just buy it at
CVS, there would be more methheads but fewer meth labs. It's all about how you
want to tune the numbers, and the same applies to tweeting while driving.
(Twitter on the speedometer: less distraction, more temptation. Twitter not on
the speedometer: less temptation, more distraction. Both are bad.)

~~~
aashay
I'm not sure this analogy applies. You're talking about a drug with addictive
versus a social network that, for most reasonable people, I would imagine, is
not necessary to access when you're driving. In fact I'd be willing to bet
that most people would agree this is a bad idea, until you actually put it in
front of them.

------
JoelMarsh
Amazing article. BUT...there are interfaces in all of the simple versions of
the examples.

Key + keyhole = interface.

A keyhole that "knows" when the correct key is close = better interface.

Wallet + Money + cashier + cash register = interface.

If you could do NFC without an app & without a cashier, that would be even
better.

There is no such thing as "no interface" if something is being accomplished.

Rock + coconut = interface.

Hand + mouse = interface.

Your eyes + my words = interface.

~~~
rbellio
I think the important part of the article was that he was encouraging the
simplest solution to interface needs. In this regard I totally agree with him.
I think some of the stuff they've added to consumer products has fallen into a
weird modular development space.

"Oh, you want us to add a touch responsive display to a refrigerator rather
than using mechanical buttons?"

Then they throw the kitchen sink at it. Once you've installed that touch
screen and the hardware needed to control it, you might as well add the
ability to control ice cube production from a mobile app. Since you're already
there, you might as well give them the ability to Tweet that they just pulled
a slice of double-chocolate cake out of the fridge.

Just because these components are capable of acting as small computing devices
doesn't mean they should be utilized like one.

The entire time I'm reading the article I'm cringing too. I don't want a
device that just operates as a universal key for everything I do during my
day. I walk up, order a sandwich and they charge my account without any
physical transaction happening and no passcode required to open my phone?
What's to stop someone else from doing the same thing?

A car that opens it doors and starts its engines because I have a phone in my
pocket? Same issue.

Steal someone's phone and you steal the keys to their life then (really
easily).

~~~
bryanlarsen
"What's to stop someone else from doing the same thing?"

No different than what happens now. When your wallet gets stolen you call the
credit card companies to cancel your cards.

Yes, sometimes when you order a sandwich you don't want to pay for it
immediately, and sometimes when you get close to your car you don't want it to
unlock. But those times are the exceptions. The exceptions are the times that
you should deal with a more complex interface. The other 99% of the time it
should do the right thing automatically.

~~~
rbellio
There are supposed to be checks in place to stop things like credit card theft
from having an immediate affect though. Cashiers should be asking for ID and
checking your signature. It's actually a control that is supposed to occur in
stores.

Someone grabs your phone and gets free meals? What controls are there on that
interface?

I don't even have a dongle on my keys to unlock my car remotely. Doesn't
bother me in the slightest.

~~~
dpark
There are supposed to be checks in place to stop things like credit card theft
from having an immediate affect though.

> _Cashiers should be asking for ID and checking your signature. It's actually
> a control that is supposed to occur in stores._

No, it's not. For small purchases, merchants are not required by the credit
card companies to check ID or to even ask for a signature.

And for larger purchases, it typically still doesn't happen. My credit card
has "ask for photo ID" written on the back instead of a signature. Even with
this, I get asked for ID maybe once every two months. Checks that are
_supposed_ to happen don't matter. Only checks that _actually_ happen matter.

> _Someone grabs your phone and gets free meals? What controls are there on
> that interface?_

Well, if you're using the system Dorsey was describing, your photo pops up
every time you go to pay. So the cashier sees it without asking for it. So if
I try to pay with your phone, the cashier can say, "I'm sorry, but you don't
look much like rbellio. Should I call my manager over?"

~~~
rbellio
It's not a credit card company control, it's a merchant control to limit
liability.

Having worked in loss prevention in the past, I know that the intent is to
make sure these controls are checked an maintained. The issue you run into
with cashiers is that the turn over rate is usually so high, or those checks
aren't done frequently enough that the controls become lax.

Why would merchants be so concerned with these controls, you might ask?
Because if it can be proven that the charges were made fraudulently, the
merchant becomes responsible for them. If someone buys $300 of stuff from a
store using your credit card, the store loses that cash.

~~~
dpark
Why are you bringing this control up if you know that it's 1) optional, 2)
poorly implemented, 3) not actually intended to protect _you_?

~~~
rbellio
If something so simple is deemed optional, how many merchants do you think are
going to be willing to pay to have the equipment to view your picture when
they try to charge your phone.

Speaking of pictures associated with your phone. Where is this picture going
to be stored? On the phone? Where, if someone steals it, they could replace
it? Should we have a national database then that relates your phone number to
an image of you?

------
chintan
About 30 minutes ago, I tried the Starbucks app to pay for coffee. I keep
seeing all cool dudes (in SoHo starbux) take out their shiny phones to point &
pay. So I gave it a try today and it definitely was not a better experience
(may be worse) than just handing over my credit card. Below are specifics:

1\. While standing in line, I searched the app and had it on, but the phone
kept turning auto-off till my turn (I re-opened it 3 times atleast)

2\. The app would not scan as the screen brightness was low. I frantically
went to settings to change brightness then re-trying and all this time there
were people standing behind me pissed.

I think using phones as "keys" or "payment cards" is not the best interface.
Ideally there should be a separate device (like a credit card) to do payments
and a "Key" device to open all my locks.

~~~
d0mine
As I understand it the key (phone) stays in your pocket and the door is
unlocked by touching the door handle while you (the key/your phone) are in a
proximity of the door.

It is similar how <https://lockitron.com/> is advertised to work except you
are required to touch the handle.

No UI means that if the phone is in your pocket the door behaves as though it
is always unlocked.

------
randallu
This is great, except the Nest thermostat's learning mode doesn't work (for
me; kept coming on at 3am, no amount of button pushing would make it not do
that except for disabling "learning mode" which is what I did), so you have to
use its UI anyway.

Fortunately the Nest's UI is good enough that it's still a good thermostat
without the learning mode. There was a comment on HN the other day along the
lines of "if you have good enough AI, does UI design quality matter so much?"
and I guess I think that it does if there's any way for the AI to mispredict
then you need something good for correcting it.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Can you reset the Nest so it discards previous learnings and starts from
scratch? Or, alternately, is there a kind of decay factor so that more recent
settings, if they're consistent, override older settings?

------
gogetter
"Getting our work done was an alphabet soup nightmare."

Exactly. This is why I'm in favor of a worldwide shift to hieroglyphics and
touchscreens for business. Writing business correspondence is old hat.
Letters, words, sentences, parapgraphs, what a nightmare. And shorthand? Don't
get me started. Let's face it, we all would much rather touch some graphical
shapes on a screen to communicate. A picture says a thousand words, so why are
we typing them out? What a waste of effort. Text has got to go. It's time to
leave the alphabet soup behind.

Finally a design firm who really "gets it".

~~~
mdonahoe
I wonder what sarcasm looks like in hieroglyphics.

~~~
gogetter
The pain of typing these letters, this alphabet soup, it's unbearable. It
gives me nightmares.

Cooper, the Thought Leaders, to the rescue!

------
rootedbox
Everyone at BMW should read this article. They use to understand usability,
and that less is more. From window button placement to easy to read VDO
gauges.

Now they have iDrive.. Complete mess!

~~~
wr1472
Weight the increase in functionality relative to the "decrease" in usability.
I think the additional functionality you get far outweighs any reduction in
usability (which for the record I think is not that bad _).

_ I have iDrive in my car.

~~~
threejay
This. I still have all the buttons a non-idrive 3 series has has, and
typically turn off the screen when I don't need the additional features. But
it is really nice to have navigation, bmw assist, and all the additional
features that come along with iDrive when I want them. I have a hard time
understanding the downside.

------
BCM43
I've got javascript disabled, and for some reason the page needs javascript to
display anything other than the header. I was initially confused as to whether
this was a joke of some sort.

~~~
Osiris
The app I develop at work won't render if you have Javascript disabled. The
entire app is rendering into the DOM using Javascript templating and data
fetched from a REST API. Using the web with Javascript disabled? May the Lord
have mercy on your soul.

~~~
icebraining
But this isn't an app, it's a blog post. And the content is already on the DOM
(view source), it's just hidden for some reason.

------
skreech
You cannot remove the interface from a human-machine interaction. A doorknob
is an interface too.

What you can strive for is interfaces that are so intuitive and easy to use
that you don't need to fight them or rtfm.

Great UI designers know how to do this.

~~~
bryanlarsen
That's certainly one interface that can be removed: the doors in Star Trek
don't have doorknobs.

~~~
dpark
Star Trek? You know we have this technology at supermarkets now, right? :)

This still isn't truly a no-interface situation, though. It's an interface
that's so natural that you don't have to think about it. You express your
intent by walking toward the door. You're still expressing intent, though. The
sensor just does a really good job interpreting that intent and acting on it.
But like all interfaces, this one is still imperfect. e.g. Sometimes the door
will open up when you're just walking too close. Or sometimes it doesn't open
when you expect, presumably because it's poorly calibrated (or maybe you have
no soul[1]).

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4jCBk8OpsQ>

~~~
Coincoin
If you observe carefully, Star Trek doors seem to detect intent rather than
proximity. Sometimes people are just in front of them talking and as soon as
they finish and want to get through, the door magically knows it needs to
open.

On the other hand, when they are facing someone through the door and want to
close it, they usually have to press a little button next to it.

Maybe it could be possible IRL with a face detector and looking at the
direction and speed of the person.

~~~
jrockway
You just need a director that opens and closes the doors at the right moments.

------
bjansn
So when you want to create an interface that provides a good experience, the
less you involve the user the better. The best example to my opinion was given
with the Nest stat. It watches you, it learns about you and based upon it's
learnings it adapts settings.

That's why Internet of Things will become big. It's not the use case of
turning the oven on 20 minutes before coming home yourself. It's about the
oven knowing you're eating a prepared lasagna that needs be to in oven for 20
minutes. While driving home all traffic information and your location are used
to determine when the oven needs to start its work.

------
mistercow
Some of this is non sequitur. To say that a refrigerator should not have
Twitter on it is not to complain about that refrigerator's _interface_ , but
rather its ridiculously unneeded _functionality_.

------
ConstantineXVI
I got an Xbox/Kinect a few weeks ago out of frustration with every other
stream player I've tried. What used to be

\- Find remote or phone

\- Navigate to Netflix/Amazon/etc

\- Click around miserable arrow keys to find whatever I'm watching

\- Press play

Is now reduced to

\- "Xbox, Bing [ugh] Star Trek"

\- "Play on Amazon"

It clearly still needs some refinement (keywords get a bit verbose), but it's
definitely the future of TV (lack of) UIs.

If Apple starts buying tons of directional mics, every TV manufacturer on the
planet should be scared to death.

------
6ren
Wow: open door to unlock. I can see some problems (e.g. you want to check it's
locked; someone breaks in while you are standing near-enough to the car), but
this seems a powerful approach.

Google search is an e.g.: almost no UI, improves over time, adapts to you.

------
fein
This article seems to be making a claim for KISS.

Awesome, I agree, except that all of those examples are shit.

It's not "more simple" to just walk up to your car and have it magically
unlock based on proximity. Simple is using your damn key to unlock the car,
not layering stacks of abstractions in order to compute ones location
juxtaposed to a vehicle. In fact, that order of events should have gone
something like this (as a generic, modern day implementation of this
functionality):

\- owner approaches car

\- owner's keyfob transmits signal to car

\- owner's car polls for incoming signal

\- owner's car decrypts keyfob signal

\- owner's car verifies that the keyfob has a legitimate encrypted key for
that vehicle

\- owner's vehicle signals the locking routine in the ECU

\- owner's ecu flips solenoid for only the drivers side door

\- door unlocks

\- owner enters vehicle

How the hell is this more simple than:

\- owner approaches car

\- owner unlocks door with key

\- owner enters vehicle.

Likewise, having your payments automagically charged based on location is NOT
more simple. Simple is ordering your food and handing over money at the
register.

The best interface is a simple interface, not a whole bunch of programming
voodoo to achieve a simple task.

~~~
davrosthedalek
It is not KISS from the engineers perspective, but from the user perspective.
>> The best interface is a simple interface, not a whole bunch of programming
voodoo to achieve a simple task.

The point is: the best interface is NO interface. Go to car. Open door. Sit.
Not: Go to car. Find keys. Unlock. Open Door. Sit.

Ordering your food is less simple than ordering your food and handle money?
But you do loose a lot of anonymity, which offsets the ease of use.

~~~
ghostfish
I agree. When I go to my car, I walk up to it and touch the door handle, which
unlocks it. I sit down and press the start button to start the engine. The key
never leaves my pocket, and I don't really care what it's doing as a user. (I
personally care since I'm an engineer, but that's beside the point) To the
user the unlock and start procedure has precisely 0 steps that aren't
physically opening the door and stating the engine via a single dash button
press.

