Jon's HCI Blog

2005-11-13T20:40:00.000-08:00

Palm Pilots for 4th Graders?
A colleague of mine and I have been having a debate recently - is 4th grade too early to introduce palm-pilots? I am taking the opposite perspective that I usually do - I think kids should learn how to use a paper and pencil before they learn to use palm pilots to organize their lives. This way, they will have a better appreciation of the role technology plays when it helps us do things that used to be done manually.
The debate comes down to a question fundamental to technology: is it important to know how to do things without the aid of technology? I for one think that it is important. I think it is important for kids to learn to add, subtract, multiply, and divide before they learn to use a calculator. I think it is important for kids to learn how to draw on paper before they learn to draw on the computer. Why? Personally, I don't buy the argument that the technology won't always be there to help out. In most cases, a people can just wait until they are near a computer to do addition or subtraction - and as we move toward the future, more and more people will have cell phones/PDAs to handle this sort of thing.
I think it is important to learn how to do things the "analog" way so that we can appreciate and better understand the technology we have. For example, if I am using photoshop I might not be familiar with all of the tools available. Tools such as "dodge" and "burn" would not have the same meaning to me if I had only seen them in Photoshop, and had never seen a "real" photograph developed. Because I know how something was done before technology, it allows me to better use the technology designed to replace it.
It is also important that people know how to interact with the real world in addition to the cyber world. Socialization is a perfect example of something that can be done on the computer through IM, email, & chatrooms, but can never give as rich an experience as actually talking to people. Technology has the power to make our lives more interesting and productive, but becomes dangerous when we use it to replace things that may be more enriching when done in "the real world". If too many of our tasks are computerized, then we will forget that we even have the choice of doing things the "analog" way.

2005-11-05T20:10:00.000-08:00

Spelling or Communicating?
As an educator, "Things That Make Us Smart" has enticed me to reflect on how technology affects learning. Norman explains how computers help us make "artifacts", which we use instead of memorizing things. In the same way that memorizing figures is no longer important, several other skills traditionally taught in schools have also become outdated of late.
Luddites often allege that kids today don't know how to spell or write gramatically because of the influence of computers. I in turn ask why spelling will be important when spell-check will be available any time the student will be writing. Indeed, I think that the ability to represent things representationally and in an abstract form may be a more important skill. Too often, we get bogged down in the specific skills without thinking about the larger goal, in this case creating effective communicators. In a world where global trading is prevalent, the ability to effectively create a graph or chart to represent an idea will be valued much more than the ability to spell effectively.
Of course, the ability to write is an extremely important skill - and one that a computer can not do for us. I think that computers have the ability to make our students better writers. It is not just the ability to easily revise, print, and do other basics that can make stronger writers. I acutally think spell-check can make better writers. I have seen several kindergarten teachers encourage their student to write using "invented spelling". The idea is that students should not get bogged down in the spelling of words, but should instead scribble more than if they had to ask or agonize about the spelling of each word. For older students, spellcheck can provide that same boost. It can allow them to write without the need to repeatedly look up the spelling of words, and thus concentrate on their ideas.

2005-10-27T19:52:00.000-07:00

Socrates the Blogger
I have just read a passage in "Things That Make Us Smart" that refers to Socrates and his hatred of writing things down. Socrates beleived that the way to teach something was to have a dialogue with that person, not to simply have them read something without opportunity to reflect and question. "Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who takes it over from him, on the supposition that such writing will provide somting reliable and permanent, must be exceedingly simple-minded; he must really be ignorant of Ammon's utterance, if he imagines that written words can do anything more than remind one who knows that which the writing is concerned with." Norman points out that book discussion groups serve as a counter-example to Socrates' point about books being a stagnat way of learning.
I can see parallels in technology available today (which, incidentally wasn't available even in 1993 when Norman was writing). A traditional website represents the form of learning that is experiential - the type that Socrates would have hated. Anyone can read the information available, but rarely is there any opportunity to reflect. Indeed, the vast amount of text available on the web probably encourage a user to continue to read more and more rather than relect. The only way for a user to interact with the author is to send an email and cross their fingers for a response.
On the other hand, Socrates would have absolutely loved blogging. Blogging is designed to be reflective. It is also a great medium for those who question what is written on the web, and leads directly to questioning of which Socrates would have approved. Commenting and discussing ideas are exactly the point of blogging - and are the modern-day equivalent to Socrates group of philosophers. Socrates never wrote a book, but I'm willing to bet that if he were alive today, he would be an avid blogger whose ideas would be refected upon by thousands more people than he ever could have met in person.

2005-10-21T19:30:00.000-07:00

Things That Make Us Smart
I have begun reading "Things That Make Us Smart" by Donald A. Norman. The book was published in 1993, and is interesting in that it identifies patterns in technology that had yet to become prevalent at the time. One theme that Norman explores is the use of technology to create artifacts. He describes a psychology study he was performing in which subjects were supposed to memorize a list of words. He caught one of the subjects "cheating" by writing down words on the list. He realizes that this is only what an intelligent person would do. Technology is adding greatly to people's ability to create artifacts. People no longer need to memorize phone numbers, as cell phones do the task better than a person can. As technology becomes more and more ubiquitous in our lives and available at any moment, certain skills will become antiquated. In the book, Norman gives the example of someone who is extremely good at remembering long lists of numbers. This suddenly becomes much less notable when one considers that any simple database can do the same thing incomparably better. The lesson to be learned from this is that creativity and seeing patterns are skills that can not be emulated by computers. By freeing up our mind-power to concentrate on being creative, computers will indeed help us to become smarter.

2005-10-14T19:16:00.000-07:00

Toulouse-Lautrec

I recently attended the Toulouse Lautrec exhibit at the Art Institute in Chicago. It was quite interesting from the perspective of a web designer. His lithographs were in a sense the websites of his day. They were posters advertising venues and events which were inteded to be distributed widely, just as many websites do today. Because of the lithograph technique used, his prints were limited to only a few colors - a style that many web designers adhere to out of choice. Because of the limited number of colors his limited use of texture, his works lend themselves to having text written directly on the artwork. Much of his work is reminiscent of modern magazine covers in which part of the image covers parts of text. While he is careful to leave the "Ambassadeurs" title at the top legible, by covering the "s" partially he draws the users eye, and cleverly draws attention to the title.

2005-09-25T08:34:00.000-07:00

Brand & Visual Vocab - Apple Logo
One of the most recognizable logos in technology is the Apple logo. As a longtime Apple user (I was using an Apple II E at the age of 3), I have followed the evolution of the Apple logo through the years. One thing that makes the Apple logo work is the obvious fact that it is a picture of an apple, and therefore easily recognizable and memorable. It is also easily scaleable as compared to a logo like the Yahoo! logo, which loses its meaning once it becomes too small to read.

Yahoo's solution is to use only the distinctive "Y" and "!" from their logo (adding a smiley) for use in a smaller form, which isn't nearly as instantly recognizable as an Apple logo of any size.

Apple's Logo also has the advantage of being based completely on shape rather than color. This allows apple to change the color as an indication of a new version of software or hardware. Compare this to Microsoft's logo, which would be nearly unrecognizable if it weren't for its colors. Also note that two of the colors are red and green, which a good percentage of the male population cannot see due to color-blindness.

Apple's logo is also placed strategically on every piece of hardware they sell, which is by the number of glowing Apple emblems on the backs of laptops one sees whenever one walks into a Starbucks. It is interesting to note that in the Powerbook G3, the glowing Apple logo was right-side up when a user had it closed and facing them (closed), but was upside down from perspective of anyone facing it while open.
It is interesting to note that in the next generation of Apple laptops, all of the Apple logos were oriented so that those facing the user could see the logo. This is interesting because Apple is indicating that it is more important for others to see the Apple logo oriented correctly (as one rarely looks at the back of the laptop when it is open) than for users to see it "right-side-up" while it is closed. Apple is banking on the fact that its users want to show off their equipment, and want others to know that their computer is an Apple.

2005-09-16T16:55:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia.org, along with all wiki's, present many design challenges. Because a wiki's content is primarily provided by users, the design must be flexible and dynamic enough to accomodate a broad range of both information and media. Wikipedia's site has a "barebones" feel, which can probably be attributed to its non-profit nature. While critiquing wikipedia's design, one must keep in mind that their bandwidth is limited, and because of its poplularity is often very slow during peak times. Thus, one must count out large graphics files and any other design feature that might slow down the site or make it less accessible to its international clientele.

The front page is fairly sparse, and serves its purpose as a portal to its "main page" written in each language it supports. It does not use any sort of flag to denote the languages, which could make it slightly easier to navigate (though too many graphics may serve as a strain on the server).

The front page of Wikipedia.org features the logo surrounded in a circular fassion by each of the primary languages it is composed of. The logo is a great reflection of the intent of the site itself. It combines the elements of a globe, characters from different languages, and pieces of a puzzle, of which a few are missing. Together, these elements do a very good job of describing the role of Wikipedia. The globe sends the message that both the content and the authors of the material are culled from all over the world. The interlocking pieces of the puzzle convey how the articles are linked together, and the puzzle is incomplete to convey how the wiki is an ongoing, never finished work. Letters from various foreign languages fill in each puzzle piece, denoting the diversity of languages in which the wikipedia is written, and the diversity of the subjects for which it has articles. Cleverly, the smaller version of the icon rests in one of the puzzle pieces.

This distinctive "W" can also be found as Wikipedia's icon when used as Firefox's built in search bar option, and to the left of the URL.

While the concept of the wikipedia logo is great, I think it can be taken farther. While I can imagine a more interactive logo that has hotspots and changes states according to mouse-overs, this type of thing may detract from the message neutrality and simplicity displayed across the rest of the site. As encyclopedias are often thought of as dry, boring docuements, the lack of color in wikipedia's logo doesn't do much to make one think differently about this one. A few distinctive colors such as red and yellow would make the logo more eye catching, and more memorable as well. The characters inside the puzzle peices could be written in the same set of colors so that they would be more eye catching. Indeed, choosing just one color other than black and white would allow the logo to remain simple, yet make it more memorable and less bland.

Wikipedia's main page is probably where the designers intended most users to start a visit, as it has a new featured article each day that keep visitors interested in checking in often. Interestingly, the design on the main page (and most of the rest of the site) is different than on the language portal page. At the top edge, we see a grey and white sunburst design that seems to orignate from the middle of the page. This design is found throughout the site, and is probably intended to serve as a neutral background for its wide bredth of articles.

At the top of each of the articles are several tabs that pop seemlessly out of the document. These are well placed to catch the eye, and are intuitive to use. However, they are in plain text and could be spruced up and made easier to see if they were turned into colorful text or textured buttons.

The left column has a similar aesthetic, and is composed of "Navigation", "Search" "Toolbox", and "Other Languages" sections in that order. Wikipedia is a highly search intensive site, yet the "search bar" seems burried under much less frequently used features in the "Navigation" list. I would suggest putting search bars at more prominent locations at the top and bottom of each page instead, as it doesn't seem to belong with the other links on the sidebar. While turning eacher category into a rollover image that expands to show links may not be an option, I would at least spruce up the links that are there. The links in the sidebar are in plain text with the same dull blue-green bullet point next to each of them. I would color code each of the bulletpoints based on category, and when possible have a small icon next to each of them to give a visual clue. One example would be to put a $ symbol next to the "Donations" link.

2005-09-15T18:07:00.000-07:00

One of the wikipedia's largest design shortcomings is its inconsistency in look and feel before and after a user logs in. (note: to see a page in the "logged in" state, one must first sign up for a free account at wikipedia. The functional difference of being "logged in" is that the user has three new sections of links available on the side-bar: "context", "my pages" & "special pages".
However, the look and feel of the page completely changes when one logs in.

The list of languages (written in their own characters) is moved from the bottom of the side-bar to prominent positions at the top and bottom of the page in the "logged in" version. I can see the point of putting these lists of languages on every page, as I can imagine being rescued from a page written in Mandarin with an "English" link. However, it seems logical to tuck this list away at the bottom or bottom left of the page, especially once a user has logged in (and presumably did not arrive there by mistake).

The "logged in" version of the page also completely does away with the wikipedia logo, and replaces it with a hastily thrown together top-bar, whose blue awkwardly matches that of the links on the page. The "WIKIPEDIA" heading is written in a plain font rather than the distinctive one that accompanies the logo on the not-logged-in page, and I am hardpressed to find any similarity near the top of the page aside from the name wikipedia itself.

One thing the "logged in" version got right is the placement of the "search bar", which is logically placed near the top left. Despite being billed as the prefered way to edit, gone are the tabs for "article", "discussion", "edit this page", and "discussion", which are instead scattered among the poorly organized new categories on the side-bar. I can see why a few of the new links on the side-bar are necessary for those who are logged in, but they could have easily been incorporated into the already decent design of the not-logged-in page. It seems the designers thought it would be confusing to have more than one place to click "edit", arguably one of the most important features of wikipedia, yet decided to take up much of the screen with foreign language links. Thus, the design fails miserably in its "call to action".

Perhaps the reason that the designers chose such a different look for the "logged in" page was to visually set it apart from the regular page. This does seem like a good idea, as otherwise one might become confused as to why the links are different or whether the posts one makes are anonymous or not. Instead of completely changing the design, I would suggest a more subtle change such as changing the background color from grey to light red or green, thus hinting to the user that the mode is different while still keeping the layout consistent.