People: the way I see it

XIII.6 November + December 2006
Page: 45
Digital Citation

Logic versus usage


Authors:
Donald Norman

In my consulting activities, I often have to explain to companies that they are too logical, too rational. Human behavior seldom follows mathematical reasoning. By the standards of engineers, human behavior can be illogical and irrational. From the standpoint of people, however, their behavior is quite sensible, dictated by the activity being performed, the environment and context, and their higher-level goals. To support real behavior we need activity-centered design.

Years ago anthropologists Janet Dougherty and Charles Keller studied how blacksmiths organize their tools. Blacksmiths, they discovered, don’t put all the hammers neatly away on the shelves, all together. No, when blacksmiths clean up at night, the hammer goes on the ground, right next to the anvil, and next to the tongs: All the tools are organized so that they are ready for the job, ready for use. Similarly, good carpenters keep nails near their hammers while working. In other words, good behavioral organization reflects human activity structure, not dictionary classification. Dougherty and Keller called this form of organization taskonomy.

Many of the design tools used by the human-centered design community lead to well-structured, carefully organized designs, often using powerful card-sorting and hierarchical clustering algorithms to ensure similar things are located near one another. Call this "hardware store" organization. Hammers are in the hammer section, where they are all logically arranged. Nails are in the nail section.

Hardware-store organization is based upon a taxonomy—appropriate for libraries and for stores, where the major problem is locating the desired item out of context. But note that some stores have learned to provide activity-centered organization in addition to their normal classification. Thus, smart food stores put potato chips and pretzels next to the beer. And some even put beer next to the diapers, so that when a shopper makes a late-night emergency diaper run, why, there is the beer, temptingly convenient. Sensible, well-organized logical design would not support this real behavior.

Consider Walter Mossberg’s Wall Street Journal review of smart cell phones: his criticisms of the Treo 700w and the Motorola Q phones, both of which use the Microsoft OS, and his praise for the Treo 700p, which uses PalmSource’s Palm OS. "The need to open menus and take other extra steps," says Mossberg, "is endemic in the Windows Mobile software."

In David Pogue’s New York Times review of the Motorola Q phone, the column headline says it all: "Lovely phone: Ugly software." The software? Microsoft’s Windows Mobile 5.0 OS:

  • "After you take a picture with the camera, what options would you want to be immediately available? Maybe Save, Send and Delete? Not on this phone. These options are all hiding in menus; activating Send, for example, requires four more button presses. (On the Treo: one.)"

The contrast between the Palm Treo 700w and 700p is especially powerful, because both have essentially identical visual appearance, hardware, and physical buttons, the only difference being that the 700p uses the PalmSource OS, while the 700w uses Microsoft’s. The PalmSource OS readily wins at interaction design; its operating system is organized around activities. Microsoft and Motorola are organized around action categories.

Why is this? I know that all companies involved here—Microsoft, Palm, PalmSource, and Motorola—have excellent user interface design teams. The answer is that, for whatever reason, the companies have followed different philosophies in their approach to interface design. Microsoft and Motorola went the taxonomic route, developing logical, well-structured interfaces for their Media Station, Windows, and Mobile OS, while Palm went the activity-centered, taskonomic route, with direct support for activities in the Palm OS.

The problem is related to the concerns voiced in my earlier essay, Human-Centered Design Considered Harmful (<interactions> XII.4, July-August 2005). Many of the designs being produced by the HCD community are far too logical. They follow the hardware-store approach to classification. This organization is well-suited for well-structured retrieval, but ill-suited for the direct support of an activity. We need both—nails stored with other nails when we are preparing for an activity, but nails next to the hammer when we are in the midst of that activity.

This is why so much well-designed software fails. This is the problem with BMW’s original design for the iDrive. The iDrive provided a logical, sensible organization of the automobile’s controls and displays. But it failed to support activity patterns. The correct approach to the support of behavior is activity-based classification.

Is activity-centered design overthrowing all that we have learned about human-centered design? No, definitely not. I consider activity structure to be a refinement of HCD. Taxonomic structures are appropriate when there is no context, when suddenly needing some new piece of information or tool. That’s why this structure works well for libraries, stores, Web sites, and the program menu of an operating system. But once an activity has begun, then taskonomy is the way to go. Things used together are placed near one another, and any one item might be located logically within the taxonomic structure, but also wherever behaviorally appropriate for the activities being supported.

The best solution is to provide both solutions: taxonomies and taskonomies. Some Web sites organize all their items logically and sensibly in a taxonomic structure, but once a particular item has been selected, taskonomic information appears. For example, if a viewer is examining a pair of pants, the Web site might suggest shoes and shirts that match. Look at a printer, and the Web site might suggest ink, paper, and other related accessories. Buy a book, and the Web site suggests other books on related topics or, sometimes, the books that other customers purchased after buying it. And recommendations based upon past behavior are often superior to recommendations based upon logic.

The context menu on a PC, the one you get by right-clicking the mouse, is an activity-centered set of commands. When properly implemented (this varies from application to application), this is a powerful aid.

Activity-centered design organizes according to usage: Traditional human-centered design organizes according to topic, in isolation, outside the context of real, everyday use. Both are needed.

References

1. Dougherty, J., & Keller, C. (1985). Taskonomy: A practical approach to knowledge structures. In J. Dougherty (Ed.), Directions in cognitive anthropology (pp. 161-174). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

2. Mossberg, W. (2006, January 5). A new Palm Treo uses Microsoft’s software, but it doesn’t beat 650. The Wall Street Journal.

3. Norman, D. A. (2005). Human-centered design considered harmful. Interactions, 12(4), 14-19.

4. Pogue, D. (2006, June 8). Motorola’s Q: Lovely Phone; Ugly Software. New York Times.

Author

Donald A. Norman
norman@nngroup.com

About the Author:

Don Norman wears many hats, including cofounder of the Nielsen Norman Group, professor at Northwestern University, and author; his latest book is Emotional Design. Some of the material in this column is from his forthcoming book, The Design of Future Things (in preparation). He lives at www.jnd.org.

©2006 ACM  1072-5220/06/1100  $5.00

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

The Digital Library is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2006 ACM, Inc.

 

Post Comment


No Comments Found