
No to "No UI" - nvk
http://www.elasticspace.com/2013/03/no-to-no-ui
======
saintx
Seeing people reason about this subject in the main article and the subsequent
comments brings me back to my college "literary theory" courses. Instead of
tossing up pithy declarative statements like "The best X is no X", or "The
best Y is as little Y as possible", and then commenting on how these
statements strike our intuition, we can bypass the literary methods in favor
of scientific ones.

There's an entire body of research on visual design (a great introduction to
which is Colin Ware's "Information Visualization") that gets right down to the
nitty gritty details of human perception, like eye tracking speed, visual
channel capacity, move and scan loops, visual working memory, the relationship
between luminance channels, motion and shape as opposed to color channels, and
on and on and on.

It turns out that "good" design principles can be quantified, communicated,
taught, and learned, are based on our common biology, and that they needn't
come at the expense of aesthetics or sound reasoning.

~~~
tsunamifury
We have methods to test UI's to validate or invalidate them, we do not have a
way to create new UI's from testing. HCI research provides a good grounding
for design architecture options, but it does not dictate an actual design for
you.

This is a very important distinction most test-only UX designers miss.

For example: If you test a skeuomorphic design versus a flat design, the
testing will only tell you which of these interpretations of each design
philosophy works best. However, maybe a better, more inspired, skeuomorphic
design would possible perform better than flat if given a a different
interpretation.

tl;dr -- testing only shows you which implementation works better in a set,
not the best implementation possible.

~~~
ThomPete
And even worse only show you which implementation works in the context its
being showed.

I.e. a lot of people UX people test was tested in pseudo environments.

[http://000fff.org/getting-to-the-customer-why-everything-
you...](http://000fff.org/getting-to-the-customer-why-everything-you-think-
about-user-centred-design-is-wrong/)

Many UX experts laughed when this was written in 2010. But it is now the
default IMO.

Testing has to be done in its actual environment to provide really useful
feedback or be something completely (like a new way of interacting with your
computer) new in order to be tested outside its final environment.

Testing no-ui is even harder since you have to build a "persona" before you
can test the results.

------
tammer
This article encapsulates the frustration I felt this weekend trying to help
my parents find their way via their fancy new in-car GPS. I eventually
realized their difficulty wasn't just the result of Ford's piss-poor UI,[1]
but also a basic conceptual issue.

It seems silly to us tech-minded folk, but my parents truly did not understand
what role they had in correcting for the GPS's mistakes.

It never occurred to them that it was _possible_ to edit the route selection,
or just go off-course and wait for the route to recalculate. As the poor map
data[2] led them on roundabout routes veering across the state, their response
to my pleading that they pre-select the best route (which they already knew
about) was simply "let's see where she's taking us."

Through constant reinforcement via the media, the abstract 'cloud' paradigm
has been deceitfully expanded to represent any new technology.[3] The
disembodied voice of the GPS,[4] to them, is an authority rather than simply a
tool.

UX problems are going to become much more complicated through all of this.
We've got to figure out whether our goal is to sell people products or help
people to enhance their lives with technology. To do the latter, software
needs to be helpfully aware of the possibility of failure. That's what honest,
understandable design means to me.

    
    
      [1]: If your designers are too terrible to make a visually distinctive on/off button state, *you need to use sliders*.
      [2]: (and/or impossible-to-determine avoid highways/tolls setting)
      [3]: "How does it get maps?" they asked me, a process which, were I not present, they would have simply taken for granted along with the million other points of abstraction necessary for a piece of tech like in-car GPS.
      [4]: (which they can only refer to as "her" or "she" rather than "it")

~~~
danneu
This reminds me of how my grandmother used to leave voicemails in a robotic,
staccato voice so that the answering machine could understand her if the
machine's default robot voice picked up the phone.

To her, the answering machine's voice is an instruction of what type of input
the machine needs.

To us, of course, the answering machine's voice is just a product of the sad
state of answering machine voice technology.

------
ThomPete
The point about no UI isn't that you wont have a display, in fact you will
have many many types of displays.

The point is that the actual interaction becomes invisible. I.e. not as much
manual input but rather the input is based your everyday actions.

You take the train as you usually do. The system knows you normally get to
work at 9 but it also know the train is delayed so you get a message that its
delayed.

Thats the vision of the future, thats the seamless and non-obtrusive part.

Not that it wont be visually displayed.

The nest takes away much of the manual work you had to do (adjust based on
when you are home etc) it doesn't remove the feedback mechanism.

~~~
salgernon
About a dozen years ago I worked with a developer who built "smart house"
applications. He was describing his home and how the house knew when he walked
into a room and activated the lights. When he got into to bed, the lights in
the room automatically went off. I asked him: "so, what do you do if you want
to read in bed?" His reply was a quizzical look, and "?? The bed is for
sleeping." He didn't understand how broken this mentality was.

The point is, if systems that anticipate your needs do not have adequate
interface for working around them - and by adequate, I mean easily
discoverable and intuitive, then they will be rejected by the majority of
consumers. And with good reason. Technology should serve us, not require us to
adapt to them.

~~~
ThomPete
Well that depends on how meta you are prepared to take it :)

The UI is in itself forcing you to adapt to it by asking you to input data
into it.

Your refrigerator does not require you to turn on the light when you open it.
Instead it turns on when you open the door.

I see this not as a revolution but as a slow (but exponentially faster)
evolution. As issues gets ironed out you can remove more and more manual
labour from the system.

~~~
andreasvc
You fail to address the point of how much control people are comfortable with
giving away. Some lights are fine if they're fully automated (fridge). But for
others people want to have some control (e.g., reading the bedroom, looking to
see if there's a mosquito etc). So no, there appears to be a limit of how much
UI you can take away.

~~~
ThomPete
To be honest I dont understand what you disagree with in what I wrote.

My point is that how comfortable people are will change over time or depending
on their situation.

I might use an ipad for reading instead and thus for me and million of other
people that problem is not really there and you have a market.

The only way I can understand your comment is if you don't believe systems can
become better over time.

I do.

~~~
andreasvc
I didn't disagree with your comment but pointed out that it doesn't address
this "no UI" concept and whether people actually want that. While it is likely
that in the future more things will be automated, it's not going to converge
to people not controlling anything. I do believe systems will become better
over time, just not necessarily through not having any interface.

~~~
ThomPete
And I didn't disagree that we dont need interfaces, more that the action
(opening the fridge door) becomes the event trigger in itself.

------
meerita
I never related invisibility literally. To me, invisibility in design is when
the user doesn't figure out the stuff, making all fluid helped by the evident
UI. That's when the design becomes invisible because is not part of the
problem. Tell me if you figure out your doorbell design, you wont because the
design is not the problem so the aesthetics of your doorbell, the functioning
and other areas become invisible. You just focus on actions.

------
JumpCrisscross
“ _Lack of understanding leads to uncertainty and folk-theories that hinder
our ability to use technical systems, and clouds the critique of technological
developments._ ”

The study linked to in the sentence points out that folk theories, while “not
completely accurate accounts...can provide people with explanatory power, can
guide behavior surrounding use of the technology, and can allow people to make
predictions about how a technology will function under certain conditions.”
[1]

These heuristics, though not perfectly accurate, can work for most of the
user's use cases. Intervention is called for only when the practical
implications of the folk theory are misleading.

[1] [http://www.cc.gatech.edu/grads/l/ledantec/files/poole-
ledant...](http://www.cc.gatech.edu/grads/l/ledantec/files/poole-ledantec-
reflecting-ubicomp08.pdf)

~~~
fusiongyro
Folk theories in other contexts provide the basis for crap like homeopathy
though. It's hard to see how a folk theory could be as liberating as the
truth. There's a tradeoff here between "investment in" and "utility derived
from" that is worth raising an awareness of, but I can't disagree with the
author that keeping people ignorant--even if it is convenient for both parties
--is a disenfranchising force.

~~~
saidajigumi
You are misunderstanding how "folk theory" is used in this context. Homeopathy
(which I'll take as a stand-in for bad science) has nothing to do with folk
theory. Think instead of "folk theory" as the informal models we use to
interact with the world and to communicate with others about the world.

For example, a former employer of mine had problems reported with an internal
search facility used by a branch of the customer service team. A coworker and
I shadowed members of this team (ala contextual interview) to learn about
their work and workflow. We were very interested to find that each user of
this system had formed their own folk theory about the idiosyncrasies of the
(very difficult to use) existing software, theories which let them get their
jobs done. These theories had little to do with the inner workings of the
software machine and everything to do with the tasks to be accomplished.

As such, creation of folk theory happens automatically in virtually any
environment where humans use tools and processes. Even when this theory is
backed by "science" or "inside knowledge", what emerges is still the working
practice, mental models, and language forms of a folk theory. Back to the
article's point then: the idea of invisible interface is problematic because
it denies the formation and elevation of culture (folk theory) that will
naturally form around an interface.

~~~
fusiongyro
Thanks for explaining that.

------
psweber
"The best design is invisible" = false. "Good design is as little design as
possible" = true. Pretty different concepts.

~~~
RivieraKid
The second is also false if I understand you correctly. In some cases a busy,
non-minimalistic design can be appropriate, e.g. casinos, games, clothes,
cars, etc. As little design as possible implies no decorations and decorations
certainly have their place in design.

~~~
jrajav
"As little design as possible" does not equate with minimalism. Sometimes
business and flourishes are necessary.

~~~
RivieraKid
So what exactly does that mean?

~~~
pixl97
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

~~~
VLM
What if you're being paid as a designer to be flashy/sexy or for the product
to be a display of conspicuous consumption?

Trying to define good design is like trying to define good literature. Are you
trying to convince the user, force the user, agitate the user, guilt trip the
user, motivate the user, educate/train the user, de-educate/un-train the user,
empower the user, de-empower the user, force the user to conform, force the
user to rebel... its all going to be different both for lit and for design
work.

------
ianstormtaylor
The idea that design should be invisible isn't a new phenomenon. As far as I
know, one of the earliest mentions of the idea was by Beatrice Warde in her
essay The Crystal Goblet (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crystal_Goblet>).
No UI just made the mistake of taking a poor, overloaded name for their
movement. Invisible Design would have been a better one that doesn't already
impose a solution.

The argument for interface culture seems really misguided though. Since when
should a culture around a poor design implementation require that we don't try
and improve it's design? I'd argue that we already have said, "the best TV is
no TV". Flat screen TVs are exactly this, we're moving away from the huge
clunky things we used to have. I'm sure some were disappointed when their TVs
lost their knobs and dials, they were part of the culture, but now no one
thinks twice about it.

I don't think reducing a UI inherently means making the mental model harder to
understand.

------
adyio
This article was a response to the "Best UI no UI" debate that was sparked by
one of Cooper's article I think [1]

Personally I think the "Best Interface = No Interface" mantra is too black and
white and totally ignores all the shades of grey in between. If you come up
with these principles, the language needs to be much clearer.

I think what people meant to say was "Sometimes the best UI is no GUI".

Best response so far is by Scott Berkun[2]

[1] [http://www.cooper.com/journal/2012/08/the-best-interface-
is-...](http://www.cooper.com/journal/2012/08/the-best-interface-is-no-
interface.html)

[2] <http://scottberkun.com/2013/the-no-ui-debate-is-rubbish/>

~~~
VLM
One minor problem with Berkun's otherwise good essay is around paragraph five,
his description of no-UI as a desire for simplicity, perpetuating the idea
that complex interactions with machines are undesirable and a symptom of
insanity. Then declares everyone's goal is simplicity, its just no-UI is doing
simple "wrong". I could not disagree more. They are not linked or in any way
related, complexity and desirability are orthogonal. I greatly enjoy highly
complex, desirable interactions. Why must we only be capable of simple, boring
actions? Highly complex action for little reward like his ridiculous example
of a door opening UI shows the orthogonality of the two concepts, not that
granting the user the ability to do complex things if they want to is somehow
"wrong".

The best literature analogy I can make is something like the ideal love story
is probably a lot more like a 200 page romance novel than like a 2 minute pr0n
video.

------
hawleyal
> the best buildings are no architecture

The example of architecture is a good one.

Of course, there is something to be said for the medium as art. That is, form
for its own sake.

Function-only is also short-sighted, as it demeans the environment.

However, I would argue that the best architecture is hyper-rational, derived
from raw need, and designed with a skill of an artisan. The real art is
fulfilling the need _and_ looking good doing it.

------
websitescenes
As a web developer/designer I will utilize the technology that is most
successful for the end client. If no UI is what is hot; I will do it. If phone
apps with big shiny buttons are what's hot; I will do it. I understand that I
will have to continually learn new and evolving techniques to display or
represent my content in a way that is desirable users. UI evangelism is
somewhat a mute point to me.

------
artsrc
I don't know what to make of the debate, but I do want one of those answering
machines he linked:

[http://ccdc11.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/durrell-bishops-
marbl...](http://ccdc11.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/durrell-bishops-marble-
answering-machine/)

Not because it is a better UI, but just because it seems so cool.

------
michaell2
one of the tradeoffs involved is between general expressiveness of the
framework and ui unobstrusiveness. E.g. direct manipulation "naked objects"
interface with fully automated objects placement on screen is quite generic
but fairly ugly. My <http://www.nestgrid.org> user interface pattern improves
on that by allowing free form editing of quasi html page, hence providing for
mostly manual placement of objects, but it's still no more "unobtrusive" than
Excel is. That is, it takes getting used to.

------
camus
well maybe your content could take the entire page width instead of being in a
1/3 page width column , or is there invisible content on the right ? you
should think about users who disabled javascript before talking about UI.
that's UI 101.

