

Quit quirks when working with others - cardmagic
http://sivers.org/quirks

======
JacobAldridge
This article is really about two things - expectations and communication - and
Derek makes an interesting tangential point about personal quirks without
actually addressing either of those issues.

Users _expect_ things to be a certain way. In most business situations, that's
advantageous - when expectations become standard across your user base it
allows you to build upon those expectations. (Rapidly thought-up example: most
users now expect underlined text on a website to be a hyperlink, which allows
authors to link to external sources without specifying 'click here' all the
time.)

But what if you want to be cutting edge, or do something that isn't expected?
Then you need to _communicate_ how you have changed expectations. When Derek
checked into that hotel, they should have explained how the lights and taps
worked (probably had written instructions for both in the room as well,
although that's not much use in the dark).

Apple have been very successful inventing their own quirks. Some of that
success is leveraging our expectations - it's why we call their devices
'intuitive'. Some of it is communication - see how many Apple ads (even still
photographs) demonstrate the touch pad being used, to communicate to dedicated
mouse-users that their expectations may go astray. And Apple aren't perfect -
I had to Google how to turn off my wife's iPod because it wasn't in the
instructions and didn't meet my expectations of an off switch.

A business coach I worked with once summed up business as: Business = People |
People = Expectations | Expectations = Communication, so

Business equals Communication.

It's a useful framework when building any product for consumption by others.

~~~
JadeNB
> I had to Google how to turn off my wife's iPod because it wasn't in the
> instructions and didn't meet my expectations of an off switch.

A beautiful example! I don't know what her model is, but the iPod Shuffle 2G
has the (to me) astonishing feature that the 'Off' part of the 'On/Off' slider
doesn't actually mean 'Off', despite being so labelled; it means 'Reset'
(forget what you've played, and where you were in the current song). The
correct way to accomplish 'Off' is 'Pause' followed by 'now wait a while'
--which I consider an extremely clumsy move on Apple's part (not the
behaviour, which is fine once you discover it, but how un-, and even counter-,
intuitive it is).

~~~
masklinn
> The correct way to accomplish 'Off' is 'Pause' followed by 'now wait a
> while' --which I consider an extremely clumsy move on Apple's part (not the
> behaviour, which is fine once you discover it, but how un-, and even
> counter-, intuitive it is).

But that wouldn't be "off", that would be "hibernate". Which is what you want
most of the time.

Off would be a complete power off, and it makes sense that the device's state
is not saved to NAND (because most people won't ever need that). The
configuration wasn't changed was it?

It's the same with e.g. an iPhone, a quick tap of the power button shuts down
the screen, a long tap completely shuts off the device. Most people never
_ever_ need to completely shut it off.

~~~
JadeNB
> But that wouldn't be "off", that would be "hibernate". Which is what you
> want most of the time.

I agree, and, indeed, I think the behaviour, once discovered, is perfectly
sensible; I'm just talking about the initial discovery experience.

The manual (at
[http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/ipod_shuffle_features_guide...](http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/ipod_shuffle_features_guide.pdf))
does not use the terminology you mention; instead, it refers at the top of the
chart on p. 4 to 'Turn[ing] iPod off', then at the bottom of the same chart to
'Reset[ting] iPod' ( _both_ by pushing the slider to 'Off'!); and it does not
mention 'Hibernation' (or equivalent terminology), or the fact that it should
replace complete power down, at all.

~~~
masklinn
> I agree, and, indeed, I think the behaviour, once discovered, is perfectly
> sensible; I'm just talking about the initial discovery experience.

The initial discovery experience, for most people, is that you don't do
anything and you iPod "magically" does the right thing in return.

~~~
JadeNB
> The initial discovery experience, for most people, is that you don't do
> anything and you iPod "magically" does the right thing in return.

I think that, at this point, we're getting into anecdotal evidence; I don't
have any idea what most people's iPod experience is, but certainly it's not
natural to me to conclude my experience with an electronic device simply by
walking away from it—I want to turn it off. (The fact that computers are an
exception perhaps explains why a younger generation might be more inclined to
the 'just walk away' approach. EDIT: OK, and cell phones. But I still think
that I have more devices in my life that I turn off than devices that I don't.
:-) )

My main evidence that this is not the only obvious approach is that it is
_different_ to the behaviour of the iPod Shuffle 1G, which one did (or at
least could) put into hibernation by sliding the main switch to 'Off'. It was
this change between generations that particularly confused me.

------
sbaqai
I think the problem with areas like architecture and industrial design is,
there is no clear performance metric for what is considered "good design" - or
at the least, what designers consider good isn't completely aligned with what
users consider good.

The switch designer in this case was overly focused on aesthetics and his own
cleverness, rather than on making a "good" switch. The fact that you'd need
directions on how to use it makes it a horrible switch. It fails its most
primitive task, which is to be identified as a switch. Secondly, you can't
tell how it works just by looking at it. And to ignore the iconography of
something utilitarian like a switch, is a bit self-indulgent. Here, design
gets in the way.

This is a problem with design education, which turns people into cake
decorators rather than problem solvers. The entire science of how-things-work
is ignored and worse still, not even considered as a source of inspiration.
Instead, you get perversions similar to that of the post-modern literary crit
world. Designers talking amongst designers, giving each other awards, and
curating some new form of design-incomprehensible to outsiders.

And this leads to the false dichotomy between form and function. Almost like
art vs. engineering. You get students who study design, who have no interest
in how things work. And you get engineering students who don't understand that
products are experienced in layers - you have first impressions and
expectations, recognition of what it does/how to use it, perceiving of quality
(would an iPod feel cheaper if it was lighter?), durability, etc. and that
process must be managed/controled via design.

I sometimes think studying bridges is a better way to learn about design than
studying architecture. You can't ever ignore the fact it has very real
constraints. And yet, there are tons and tons of beautiful bridges. Every
component must be functional AND aesthetic. A designer is the engineer and the
engineer is the designer. You get a very "fat-free" structure. Different
bridges have different experiences. And they never get in the way of you
driving across them either.

James Dyson gave an awesome talk about this at MIT, called "The Art of
Engineering". I definitely recommend watching it if you see engineering and
art as one: <http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/362/>

------
athom
The folks coming down on Derek might do well to read Donald Norman's book, The
Design of Everyday Things, which speaks directly to this issue. It's important
to remember that the purpose of design is not simply to dazzle the beholder,
or make people think, but to make useful things usable. It's easy for
designers to forget this, especially the avant-garde sort who fall in love
with their own creative spirit, tend to win the accolades for their "radical"
ideas. In fact, Norman's book introduced me to one of my favorite design
epithets:

"It probably won an award."

------
swombat
Couldn't agree more. I've recently had a similar experience with the windows
of the flat I live in. They are big double-glazed windows, very nice, that are
made of a single pane of glass with a horizontal axis so you can rotate it to
open the window.

There is, of course, a latch, to make sure the window doesn't open past a
dangerous point (we're on the 7th floor of a 20-floor building). The clever
designer who designed these windows managed to hide the latch in such a way
that it doesn't look like an ugly safety latch. Result? When cleaning the
windows some time ago, one of the windows rotated all the way around and then
latched itself. We couldn't figure out what was going on (the latch pin is
entirely concealed) and so while trying to close it again, broke the pin,
which required us to call in some window fixing people whose only option was
to actually saw through the pin to close the window, because the pin was so
inaccessible.

We also got them to install some simple latches. Those are clearly visible,
and involve a little bar of metal with notches that you can hook onto the
window to latch it. Clear, obvious, and I can guarantee you that no one will
ever break one of _those_ latches while trying to close the window.

Kudos to the designer who managed to screw up the usability of a _window_ ,
though.

~~~
Robin_Message
<Sarcasm> That's nothing compared to Microsoft who have been on a crusade to
screw up the usability of all the windows in the world!

------
JoeAltmaier
People are VERY conservative when it comes to interfaces. Remember those old
Westerns, where the guy in the Hotel washes up in a basin? Two pitchers: hot
and cold.

Along comes running hot and cold running water! Two faucets replace two
pitchers. Still washing in the basin - fill it with some hot, some cold.

Now somebody clever invents the single faucet- one handle to mix hot and cold!
Cool! Quickly get just the temp you want. Fill the basin, wash and shave.

But wait - kids are just washing under the flowing water. Those darn kids! But
it DOES save water.

Everybody is doing that now - so filling the basin becomes an anachronism. In
fact the basin is just to catch the water - its a drain. A dirty drain. Who
would wash their face with drain water? Ug.

So we go from pitchers and basin, to running water with adjustable temp going
down a drain. Total elapsed time: 100 years, 3 or 4 generations.

Nothing in that process was rocket science. Could have happened the 1st day.
Its PEOPLE that are the inertia, darn those people and their expectations.

------
jamn
Not sure I agree with the premise of this article.

You can always make the case that, on the contrary, you may want to go to a
hotel to experience something that you haven't experienced before.

If the design is somehow more functional or otherwise makes the room look very
beautiful, I'd be more than happy to stay at a place like this.

If necessary, they can always put little notes explaining how some of the main
tasks get done.

I agree that the fact that people stay in a hotel for only at most a couple of
days puts more constraints on how accustomed people can get to another
interface. My own programming "quirks" have developed for a reason. So why
does the author then use this example to justify his point about teamwork when
the metaphor breaks? Or is he implying that you will only work with a team for
such short time that no one will reap any benefits from getting used to ideas
that make things faster in the long run?

~~~
sapphirecat
> If the design is somehow more functional, ...

The problem is that the design barely functioned at all. The light switch was
hard to discover, and used gestures even harder to discover. How different
would it be if the "smooth panel" was a backlit LCD touchscreen with a softly-
glowing "O -> |" on it? Especially if it were placed where it was visible the
instant the door was opened? Alternatively, if it reacted to any motion
instead of specific gestures.

I guess the lesson I take from it is that _visual_ design is only a single
component of the overall design or interaction design, and focusing only on
the visuals without thinking about anything else is not likely to generate a
usable solution.

~~~
Gibbon
How do you know visuals were the only criteria? A flat panel is a hell of a
lot easier to clean than a regular light switch.

------
pxlpshr
This is probably my least favorite post by Derek, whereas the others I've
generally really enjoyed. It started very "get off my lawn-ish".

Standards are inherently good when working with others, but style is
unavoidable. Ultimately everyone has to adapt and I believe this is one facet
where company culture gets defined.

~~~
JadeNB
> Ultimately everyone has to adapt and I believe this is one facet where
> company culture gets defined.

This seems to me to be precisely what he's saying --that, previously, he has
tried rigidly to maintain his style, but now will keep an eye to adapting when
appropriate. Perhaps I missed your (or his) point?

EDIT: Actually, it's reasonably likely that I _am_ missing your point, because
I always do bring my quirks to the job, and so couldn't help taking this as a
personal admonition, which probably blinds me to a bigger picture.

------
lvecsey
At some point the light switch and the faucet controls will have to go. But we
can't get to that stage if people have trouble with a side swipe or other
twist and tweak.

I agree that it's brain dead to have a major site like Dell always changing
their website interface, just to keep things "fresh" or make it seem like some
layer in management actually did something every 3 months. The concept of a
mouse and menu choices however goes back to the Xerox photocopier
developments, and have yet to be shed. For example a better input scheme could
be using keyboard input for navigation but only if the prevailing rule is to
be smart about it. Consistency is important but secondary!

------
microtherion
In newer hotels in Germany, the rooms DO have light switches, but the lights
only work while the room key card is inserted in a slot by the door. There
certainly is some logic to that, but it badly confused me first time I was
confronted with this arrangement.

