I sent an email the other day to a colleague and was slightly surprised to get a spam filter email as response. But I quickly rationalised this as a sensible and reasonable thing…I get a lot of spam…I’m not surprised…Maybe something I might end up having to do with an online account. Then I looked at the email and started boiling …

It read (or I interpreted) “You are a suspect…you are not allowed”. Had I really blown something up? I didn’t think so. I thought, I’m sure my colleague can’t know of this …so I clicked on, into more villainy and deceit… the next screen was worse…

So … if my colleague deigns to allow me in … now I’m getting more and more agitated. And the horrible thing is that the effect of this is reflecting on my colleague, not the awful reverse emotional design of this screen. It says “…if so-and-so chooses to allow email from your address”. This screen purports to speak for my colleague. It makes me think these are his words, not the words of this awful site.

The final screen just rubs it in, repeats the ‘choosing’ insult, then asks me if I want more information about spam blocker. Do I hell!

Interestingly, its perfectly usable. Didn’t stop me, and I found all the buttons. But it was definately NOT a good experience. In fact, this is the worst emotional design I have seen, obviously built from ignorance. And there is no need. The design should be focussed on providing a good experience for those like me legitimately trying to be in touch. It should support my rationalisations of security and safety and communicate apology and friendliness. The spammers dont care what you say, but your colleagues do, so don’t alienate them with design like this.

Share This

My background is in Experimental Psychology, and I grew up academically witnessing a big fight between the Behaviourists and the Cognitivists.

In the red corner were the Behaviourists who believed that the only thing that was worth studying was the outward behaviour of animals and humans, best considered as ‘black boxes’ influenced and controlled by external forces. The ’stimulus’ triggered a ‘response’ behaviour. What goes on in the middle is not important, not worthy of study. This idea was in its time very successful because of its simplicity. It limited how to think, and sometimes in some circumstances this can lead to real gains because of the self-imposed constraints.

In the blue corner were the Cognitivists, just gaining the ascendent. What went on in peoples heads for the Cognitivists was massively important. Noam Chomsky was part of this scene, as, interestingly, was Don Norman as part of the new information processing modellers, but a minor player then. Cognitivists thought that mental models were important, and that language might be harder to understand than just as a very complicated string of stimuli and responses. Eventually. the Cognitivists won the day on this.

Strikes me that that the ‘battle’ between the ‘Experientialists’ and the ‘Usabilitists’ has a similar profile.

The Usabilitists see the user as a black box with no mindset, personality or context. The thing to study is the interface, and if the interface is ‘usable’ then its ‘usable’, period. Whatever the circumstances there is a guideline or rule to specify ease of use, whatever. The Usabilitists focus is on the interface, though they state the user is at the centre of things, the user is the focus like a rat is is the focus in the middle of a maze.

The Experientialists look at a bigger picture and try to get the context. They look at the user as they pass through time, try to get in their heads, try to understand motivations and mindsets. Its a harder set of questions, and there can’ be any hard guidelines and rules … it is really it depends … and it depends on things that are hard to get at, aspects of personality, motivation and context. No absolutes. No certainties.

Same battle? Kind of, I think. It’s interesting to make the comparison at least. One thing I do strongly recognise from this 80’s experimental psychology battle is that the way that the Cognitivists would never have made it without the Behaviourists being there first. As Experientialists, we need the Usabilitists to have been there, put the foundations in place and pave the way for the new (old? Have we been here before?) thinking.

Share This

Back in 1994, Jakob Nielsen had just launched and was completely text- based. The ex-distinguised engineer from Sun, Nielsen said today to the BBC website “My attitudes have changed less then 20% in ten years, even though users, culture, technology and just about everything else on this planet have changed enormously.”

Share This

Heinz UK have brought out a new variety of ketchup bottle that stands on its top rather than its base. The driver for this design innovation in sauce delivery systems will be quickly realised by any fan of the spicy red condiment. Simply, the traditional sauce bottle has the sauce at the bottom and the hole is at the top. When inverted, unless the bottle is perfectly full, a finite time will elapse between this inversion and the consequent exit of ketchup from the bottle. And, when your bacon sandwich awaits, this finite time can appear infinite.

Clearly something had to be done and the Heinz solution is pictured here, but it is fatally flawed. The flaw is simple and obvious once spotted - although the bottle is designed to be placed cap-down, it may also be placed cap-up. If placed latterly, the benefit of the design disappears and the old problem of the long wait re-emerges.

But why would anyone place it the ‘wrong’ way up? Simple. because they can. My recent post The Design of Everyday Toilets noted that form was used by the designer to determine use. A button was placed such that to reveal it an action had to be taken. The designer of the bottle might have used this to good effect by making the bottle not able to stand the ‘wrong’ way up. If he/she had done this, it would always have been placed the ‘right’ way up because it was the only way up and form would have determined and preserved the correct function.

Perhaps the designer thought that the massive orientation cue on the label would do this job. If the bottle is the ‘right’ way up, then so is the label. But things can mitigate against these cues as they depend on cognitive attention which may not always be given. For example your audience might be children, typically huge ketchup fans. The childen may value physical cues like form over cognitive cues like letter orientation because of their developmental stage. (In fact this phenomenon was noticed in the company of chidren who just kept putting the ketchup back the ‘wrong’ way up even though they understood the bottle as it had been talked about). But there is another cue that leads to the wrong orientation and that is the familiarity of the bottle with the top at the top. Most bottles orient this way, its the way the world is. In fact in many circumstances, notably with wine or beer, it would be poor practice or impossible to balance a bottle on its top. Indeed, this is because its form determines that you cannot!

The strongest clue to correct orientation in this case is physical form, not cognitivist clues that fight for correct orientation (label) or against it (familiarity). Shame Heinz didn’t go all the way, but a good try nevertheless.

(Thanks to my friend Paul Miller for pointing this one out!)

Share This

Date: Thursday, 2 Dec 2004

Time: 7:00 PM

Place: University College London Interaction Centre (UCLIC)31/32 Alfred Place, near Goodge Street Station Full directions available on the UCLIC website

Cost: FREE

The evening will begin with a presentation by Kevin Cheng of OK/Cancel. Kevin’s presentation will be followed by socialising, networking, and engaging at College Arms, 18 Store Street, right around the corner. We’re also happy to announce the UXnet guest of honour for the evening: Louis Rosenfeld, co-author of Information Architecture for the World Wide Web.

Presentation Title: The User Experience Community is Thinking Too Big
Summary: Blurred lines, segregation, overlap: these are all terms used to describe the state of the user experience community. Dozens of organizations exist, each claiming to represent some or all of the user experience community, and each claiming some unique value. Is the solution to create a new organization to bring them all together, or are we thinking too big?

Kevin Cheng’s presentation has filled to capacity and space will be limited so please do not arrive with others who have not responded. Upon your arrival at Remax House, 31/32 Alfred Place, please follow the signs to the student lounge until students have cleared out of 101.1.

If you’re unable to make Kevin Cheng’s presentation or if you arrive late, no worries. Please join us afterwards at College Arms, which is right around the corner at 18 Store Street

More info on UXnet here

Share This