Assignment nr 5.

Assignment nr 5.

Film review

by

KADRI PENJAM & MARTIN RAAMAT

This is a review of 2009 film called Objectified, directed by Cary Hustwit. It is film about humans and design and how design affects our everyday life. How designers behave and see the world has a lot to do with in what culture they come - how they see colours, shapes etc. This film has different designers who are introducing their approaches to design through their culture and unique point on view.

Andrew Blauvelt is first one who appears to comment design in this movie and he starts with interesting way - although we know that design is no something that just happens, still very few of us notion the hard work behind it. “Every objects tells a story, if you know how to read it” is an interesting approach how to look at objects. We are used that films have stories, books, comics etc., but design? It might surprise lot of people. We look at designed object, and we already see what it tries to tell us - good design is when we do not notice it has a huge design, rather we find all functionalities and we can interact with it easily.

Designing and object lives through a great procress before it reaches to market. While developing the product, it has a constant trying, comparing and improving phases. It is not just ready made with simple sketches.

Coming back of the essence of good design, then it is nicely put together in this film when they interviewed Braun Kronberg. He stress that good design has little design as possible, it is innovative, long lived and useful. Design being long lived is quite hard to manage considering e.g. nowadays electronic devices. But I guess design of a stool or table proves that some design can long live and that is something we should consider while designing. That is for sure one of the aspects that makes a good design because with long liveability it also reduces throwing products away.

Design of an object is not all about how the object looks like, but also how useful it is. Sometimes a product might look hideous and really uncomfortable to use, but people buy it anyway because they need it. This is the point that many companies realized and they understood that if they add a better looking design to an object, it would sell even better. Some people would even buy the product not for the usability but only because of the design and it can be said that this is the success of a good designer. This situation usually happens on an emotional level, people really relate to a product and its design and they immediately understand the functionality. This is how it is supposed to be. Unfortunately there are also many product nowadays that are designed so badly that customers simply can`t figure out how to use them.

People also tend to identify themselves or others in an object as it would represent their character. For example the design of cars; every car has special look and the front part, which is sometimes referred to as a “face” of the car. People really like to compare the driver and his car and how they fit together.

It was also referred to in the movie that technology has evolved so quickly in the last decades that we are living in a really bizarre world of mixed and useless designs, meaning that some objects we use are the latest achievements in technology, but some things we use haven`t changed in centuries. For example we have the latest smartphones but still use old and stiff wooden chairs at home that are really uncomfortable and cause backaches. So the design of objects should evolve by making the objects simpler, easier to use and more comfortable.

In the digital age, the physical shape of an object is not that important anymore, it is more about the software and the user interface that counts for the usability of the object. This means how the people will interact with the object and all the possible scenarios one might go through by using it. So it is really important for the designer, particularly in the digital world to think about all the possible things that might happen when using a computer program. The main factors to consider while designing these kinds of interactive systems are that all humans make mistakes and they constantly need feedback from the system.

One of the most important aspects in design nowadays is also sustainability. It is a reality that most of the products that we buy pretty soon end up in the trash, so the designs should be long lasting and ideally recyclable. It is not only important what materials to choose for a product  to make it look good but also what, if anything, can be done later with these materials, after the disposal. However the sustainability of a design has a totally new meaning in the digital world. If a company sells one million bad chairs then these chairs will probably soon end up in the junkyard. If a company sells a million copies of a faulty computer program, then there is no physical waste and the design can be updated by reprogramming the parts that have errors. While this may sound like a revolutionary thing then it is actually quite a normal behaviour. If a kid breaks his legs, then the doctors don`t say, "His leg is broken, get a new son, because this one is useless now". Things and also people can be fixed. So most likely the future will also bring us products and designs that can be “reprogrammed” on the spot without the need to throw anything away or buy something new, creating a new kind of sustainability.

State transition diagrams, Petri nets

Materials are not available online :(

Interface Efficiency, KLM, GMOS

Interface Efficiency is quite logical term if I read more about it but what was interesting was that how little I connect it with mechanical understanding of it. It proves that nowadays computer is everyday life and we do very little to actually analyze what are the actions we gain and also lose while letting them so close to our lives. It is little conserning but at the same time if we raise our knowledge on it, it is not so bad.

The Human Processor Model, Fitts Law

Again very interesting map to create - The Human Processor Model seems very interesting topic to explore and also by now, doing so many maps, I began to see their closeness to each other - e.g. errors are connected to the human processor model, since it deals with memory types and errors often comes when we forgot to do something or we go to a place for certain task and we forgot what it is.

Feedback, Errors, Forcing, Gestalt laws, Responsiveness- Cmap 3

So far it has been the most interesting conseptul map I have done due the fact that I have related lot of thing to my real life - such as errors and different types of it, especially what erros resulting from slips can be.

Seven Stages of Action by Donald Norman

Seven Stages of Action was interesting topic to explore. Again it is very much near to our everyday life and therefore very helpful and useful knowledge. Also I liked the difference between goal and the task while creating design and good design are not made for tasks rather than goals. Focusing only the tasks designer could lose the sight of what goals the user wants to achieve through these tasks. That was again very logical, but at the same time often forgotten truth!

Design Critique: Assignment 3 (HCI)

DESIGN CRITIQUE

Groupwork by Kadri-Liis Piirsalu, Martin Raamat, Nansy Mass and Kadri Penjam

The following post will provide small reports about design critique that will focus on four pairs of objects; two physical and two virtual ones and contrasting each pair. The analysis of these objects looks at the usage scenario that could be imagined for the object including visual materials to emphasise on the contrasts and the critique. 

In this design critique assignment, the following pairs of objects are compared:

Physical:

1.      Samsung LE52M87BDX remote control vs Sony’s Google TV remote control

2.      Nokia 7650 vs Nokia 808 PureView

Virtual:

3.      Youtube vs. Vimeo

4.      Google Maps vs. Bing Maps 

11. Physical object: Samsung LE52M87BDX remote control & Sony’s Google TV remote control

One of the main questions about remote control design is that why did it get so awful and confusing at first place. Every living room has its own collection of remote controls, a set of instruments that must be played. We all have access to hundreds of buttons in our houses in seven different colors worth overlapping labels. Many of the buttons on our remote controls will never be used nor touched so why do we need so many of them? Why should a television, a simple device that’s not so interactive, spread so much clutter and confusion since remote control was supposed to make our lives easier, but instead it has led us into a ‘labyrinth of bad design’. 

Typical scene in our living rooms

The design and function of a remote control has developed to look more like switchboards, with dozens of buttons. This made the users face the problem of having too much control and too many remotes. Since today designers have not been able to solve this problem for the user. Today’s devices have more rounded edges but their main functions and foibles have not much changed.

For criticizing the design of remote controls two different remote controls were chosen;Samsung LE52M87BDX remote control that is similar to any other remote control we all have in our living rooms and Sony’s Google TV remote control that is one of the latest inventions among remote controls. Sony’s Google TV remote control is designed to bring Google TV to the living rooms and to offer additional functionality through Logitech accessories.

As the visibility plays significant role in human computer (product) interaction and is one of the most important aspects in design it is important to discuss the matter of remote control and its visibility. Good design requires immediate action by the user and no extra conscious thought. In this case it could be argued that none of these products offer full-on clear understanding about all of their usage. The design however refers to us how we should use it but the variety of buttons and not knowing their functions may make the users uncertain to use the products full potential. Therefore we can argue that remote control offers that half-way- there solution in a sense as part of the remote is clearly identified and interpreted; off-on button, volume up and down button, channel buttons 1,2,3,4 (etc) and channel switching button. On the other hand the visibility is not that clear and rather confusing because the remote control also offers 10 other buttons that often need instructions for use or are misused and thus create errors. Therefore the lack of visibility in remote controls can cause false causalities that may lead for example to loss of control.

Further on the design of the product should also provide user knowledge what are the suggested actions so that no instructions or labels are needed, in other words providing theaffordances. In the case of the two compared remote controls and overall in the remote control world there is no such thing as no instructions at all. We all have been there when we enter our friends house and need to choose between 5 different remotes just to try turning the TV on and its getting more confusing to navigate further. When we compare these two examples than the Samsung remote is already pretty confusing when you haven’t used this model before but it is a classical remote control affordances offered to the user. Sony’s remote on the other hand can cause confusion already because of its new design that we are not used to but also the list of actions that it provides; remote control + QWERTY keyboard + integrated optical mouse, that is all heavily influenced by Sony PS3 controller. This will yell to the user ’ where are my instructions’!

This is all we need:

Remote controls could be seen as an exception, meaning that remote control carries complex function of an object and not relatable to simple affordances. Product design can support usability when using affordances well but can also suggest actions that are not actually possible or not the right ones if false affordances are provided; it could be argued that both scenarios happen with remote controls.

When we analyze the mappings for the remote controls then we need to keep in mind that good mapping should enable ease of use and therefore is a link between what we want and what is perceived possible. Thus keeping that in mind we can argue that the approximately 50% of the remotes buttons and their functions are understood immediately (these are the on-off button, volume, changing the channel buttons and numbers of channels) but the other 50% of the buttons need instructions for effective usage and even block the usage rather than enable ease of use. 

To summarize, we can argue that in the case of remote controls it is probably not the case that designers have deliberately violated the principles of design it is rather the question of several companies offering too many different products that need remotest and therefore users are packed with dozens of remotes and buttons that all function separately. This means that the first problem is in the lack of technical convergence (a universal remote). Therefore we may argue that the first problem is technical not visual?

22. Physical: Nokia 7650 vs Nokia 808 PureView

Nokia 7650 was the first camera phone that Nokia created. It was launched 2002. When we compare it to Nokia 808, what was launched decade later, we see much changes with design etc.

Visibility

The biggest difference is that Nokia 808 PureView is a touch screen device, and Nokia 7650 is not. Last one has buttons, what are actually the weakest thing when considering design. 

Nokia 7560

As you can see from picture above, the buttons are really small and letters on those are as well hard to catch. This thing eliminates automatically old people from being a potential buyer of this kind of devices.

Designer is probably deliberately violated the design principles beacause the focus group are younger generation. But still in my mind even youngster could have problem with this kind of letter sizes.

Alternatives for small buttons are shown clearly nowadays dendency where buttons are gone and we only have touch screens. Nevertheless in these days when touch screens were not reachable they could have though more about how to put several buttons together functioning as one. So we do not need so many buttons just main ones that guide you to wanted area.

If we think in camera-phone point of view, then visibility in Nokia 7650 is very low. It is not shown anywhere that it has camera functions. Nokia 808 on the other hand gives it more away – it has a big screen where to watch pictures, it is confortable to hold and desktop hints that taking pictures is a great value in this device.

Mapping

Nokia 808 has no physical buttons – only the ones in touch screen and in a small amount. So we do not see all screen full of “buttons” but few of them what are leading to other actions and subactions. That is something that in my opinion should have done in physical buttons as well in order to keep it nice and simple.

With slide out design (when answering the calls) was design for the reason to keep the phone as small as possible then nowadays this is not valuable anymore. When we look at Nokia 808 PureView, then we see quite big devices what at first time feels weird to hold in our hands (now we are of course use to it).

Nokia 808 PureView

Comparing those two in that sense weather is it nice to hold a smaller phone or bigger then in my mind the last one better. Design for Nokia 808 is lot more smooth and rounder so it ii handy. Nokia 7560 is more square and thicker – so being a smaller device does not mean that it would be better to hold and use it.

11.  Virtual: Youtube vs. Vimeo

The two virtual objects compared in this example are the two most popular video sharing platforms on the internet: Youtube and Vimeo. They were both made with the most basic requirements, which were that all users can view and upload videos. Quite simple yes, but the design of a site can really lead up to a totally different user experience.

It`s quite obvious that both sites are targeting different people, but still it`s also logical that they both want the users to simply come to the site and watch videos. This is where the visibility issues come in and both sites seem to send out a different message to their viewers.

Youtube welcomes its visitors on the homepage with 35 videos from 10 clearly visible categories which are usually not older than 5 days. They also show the duration and view count for every video. This means new content is literally 1 click away and you know what you are going to see, how long it lasts and how many other people have watched it before you.

Meanwhile the homepage of Vimeo first asks their users for their full name and email address. Compared to Youtube there are only 6 videos on the main page without any information about their category or amount of views. For example a user has to make 3 to 5 clicks just to view a video from the comedy category.

In this case Youtube has clearly put more effort in simplicity and it directs users straight to the videos with 1 click while the design on Vimeo first forces the user to join and read why their platform might be better. I believe this kind of  principle is deliberately planned, because Vimeo is not as popular so they try to convince people into uploading their content rather than watching videos first.

Youtube vs Vimeo. The design of Youtube invites people to watch videos while Vimeo asks them to upload.

When it comes to the appearance of a single video page, there are also some major differences between the two platforms. There are clear cases of how one of the designs is meant to keep the user on one specific page as long as possible or quite the opposite where users are offered to move on to watch some other content.

The first difference happens even before getting to the video page. After clicking anywhere on the site on a video link, Youtube automatically opens the video page and the streaming of content starts automatically, the user doesn't even need to press the play button. The page also features 14 thumbnails of related videos in the sidebar to keep the viewers watching similar content. That seems like a very logical design, because when users likes something, then they usually want to see some more of it.

Vimeo on the other hand focuses more on a single video and its content. The screen and video ratio is much bigger compared to Youtube, where the video plays on a relatively smaller space. Major differences also include the facts that a video won't auto start playing and after scrolling to bottom of the page there seem to be no related videos anywhere. Only when scrolling back up the user can notice that 9 related videos were actually hidden in the website header. They won't become visible after a user scrolls up or clicks on a vertical text link stating More videos on the upper right corner.

The design of Vimeo stresses more the content of one video, while Youtube also focuses on related content.

22.  Virtual: Google Maps vs. Bing Maps

Both Bing and Google maps are maps that can be used via internet on a computer browser or through a downloaded app in a smart device. In this review we focus more on the web browser maps, rather than their mobile applications.

Image of Bing Map in a web browser.

Bing map is relatively new map when compared to Google map. The Bing map is part of the  Bing search engine and offers different kind of services for the user when it comes to the point of searching a direction, place, service places, businesses, transport, etc.

Image of Google Map in a web browser.

Google map is one of the first successful virtual maps out there online. It can be said to be one of the forerunners in the industry of virtual maps. The Google  map is part of the  Google search engine and offers different kind of services for the user when it comes to the point of searching a direction, place, service places, businesses, transport, etc.

Both, Google and Bing, maps differ from each other significantly due to their visual designs, even though they look pretty similar at a first glance. When looking into the maps to search for streets and places, there is a huge difference already visible in the basic road maps they offer (see image). Google highlights their main roads, buildings, green areas, etc. with a distinctive and clearly visible color, while Bing seems to use more indistinctive colors that makes it hard to quickly grasp where are they navigating on the map and where are the objects and roads located. This is probably because the designer has implemented the Bings search engine visual design within the maps, buttons and navigation menus,  instead of using objects and colors that the user actually needs in order to successfully navigate on the platform.

Both maps offer a great satellite images, but Bing clearly offers a more enjoyable, vivid and realistic satellite image. There is no real difference in the satellite images from navigational point of view for the user, as the users usual basic goal is to search or reach for locations. Though searching for the right map mode in Bing is more complex than in Google as it offers two different button menus for it, while Google offer one as an on off switch.

The Street views of both maps are very similar as they are based on photography, though they have very different navigation menus and graphics to navigate with in the street view mode.

Bing seems to use at a first glance a very suitable navigation system which is at the bottom of the image. Though Google sees no need for a menu of things when the user can navigate within the image itself, but offers a menu up on a left hand side corner, just in case the user doesnt know they can navigate inside the image. Besides this Google offers a smaller map for the user to know where they are on the street map and what direction are they moving towards, which makes it tremendously easy for the user to grasp fully where they are and what their doing, which helps the user to reach his/her goal. Whereas Bing only offers the map.
Google also gives more options for the user to navigate in the street view mode, than Bing does.

In general Google seems to uses more logic in visual navigation and how the buttons, and information are displayed.
One major obstacle with the street view mode is with Bing as the user needs to download and install an app on the computer in order to look at the street view mode. Its time consuming and inefficent for the user, especially if they need to quickly look up at something.