Conversation with engineering psychologist Anatoly Kostin
Convenience is a key characteristic of any thing, especially if it is a commercial product. Often, manufacturers are so keen on finding innovative and multifunctional solutions that they forget about this “trifle”. But many things brought fame just a good interface: remember Macintosh or iPod. Anatoly Kostin, an engineering psychologist and usability specialist, used to design equipment for astronauts, and now he is creating computer interfaces and web sites. About the rules of engineering psychology, the science of convenience of technology, Professor Kostin, the scientific leader of UsabilityLab, told Dmitry Falaleyev, the senior editor of HBR - Russia. The main postulate of usability is not to start from the tasks that you yourself invent or are able to solve, but from what the user is looking for. Interface design should begin not with programming, but with an understanding of the conditions in which the consumer works and with whom he interacts. This is the so-called "activity scenario", it should precede the start of work. In life, sometimes a different approach wins: let's make a program that has this and that, and the client will appreciate it later. But how this program will be used by people, no one thought. The problem is that the finished product cannot be adapted - this is a house curve that is easier to break than repair. The usability postulate works not only in relation to computer and nuclear installations. Just a computer interface appeared later than others. Previously, engineering psychologists designed control panels for nuclear power plants, factories, car dashboards, etc. At an even more general level, ergonomics deals with this. Ergonomists still work with even the simplest tools. The principles of creating a convenient thing are very similar - this is one of the main conclusions of the conversation.
Most people have never heard of engineering psychology. What is this science?
Engineering psychology is the border area between technology and psychology. This science originated in the middle of the XX century. In the 1950s, there was an impressive leap in the development of technology: jet aircraft appeared, the most complex industrial installations. And after that, the number of human errors in the control of equipment dramatically increased. Some led to serious and even tragic consequences. Previously, the errors were treated very simply: the person is to blame - overlooked, distracted, unqualified. If there were no victims, he was punished - and they safely forgot about the incident. While the accidents were sporadic, such an approach was more or less suited, but then mistakes fell as if from a horn of plenty. It was necessary to punish everyone and several times a day - naturally, it was stupid and pointless. It became clear that the nature of human error has an unaccounted pattern: the fault was the inability of technology to the capabilities of man. Previously, no one set out to make the technique such that it was convenient to work with it, but now there was no choice. Thus was born the ergonomics - the science of labor. And already it included engineering psychology, studying the interaction of man and technology.
That's just before it was necessary to make the equipment convenient for the trained operator, and now - for the mass consumer.
The change of objects is not fundamental, the patterns remain the same. One way or another, science gradually developed, and its results began to be used not only in industrial enterprises, but also in private industries. And in the 1980s, the Americans introduced the concept of usability, which means the field of engineering psychology, dealing with the problems of creating computer interfaces. It sounds crazy in Russian, but no one has yet managed to find the correct equivalent: usability, convenience - everything is bad. So use the English term.
You are improving the interfaces of computer programs. Explain the secret to Apple’s success? Macintosh is considered one of the most convenient systems.
The point is the success or failure of certain decisions. Here, in my opinion, Microsoft has one of the greatest usability divisions in which the interfaces of the developed software are tested and investigated. So it’s wrong to think that convenience only at Apple is wrong. Simply, the multifunctionality that many large developers are fighting for is a double-edged sword. They seek to push as many options as possible into the product. But there is a pattern: 90% of people use the capabilities of the software by 10%, only the advanced users know about the remaining 90% of the functions, and their maximum is 10%. A huge number of options overloads the interface, and the common man has to wade through the jungle to solve a trivial task. Well, what convenience can we talk about here ?!
The more features, the harder it is to achieve usability?
Naturally. The complexity of the product increases, the connections between the functions are multiplied, and the number of possible unplanned situations increases. It all spills on the user. Why did Apple succeed? Mac functionality is “compressed” to a minimum, only those options that a person is looking for in the first place are in sight. Mac has a very simple interface, which is why it has become so popular. But do not indiscriminately blame the usabilityists of other IT corporations - they just preach a different philosophy. It was originally aimed at increasing the functions and complexity of the product.
The conclusion suggests itself: it turns out, a multifunctional product can not be made simple?
In general, yes. One of the main rules of usability says: it is better to make several relatively simple products for different groups of users than one complex and cumbersome and then adapt it for several groups. Anyway, you can't please everyone, but with a narrow specialization, the product at least becomes understandable and convenient.
What other rules are there in usability?
In fact, the main postulate is one: to go not from those tasks that you yourself invent or are able to solve, but from what the user is looking for. It would seem to be a non-original conclusion, but in fact it is very deep. Interface design should begin not with programming, as many people think, but with defining the tasks that a person has to solve, with an understanding of the conditions in which he works, with whom he interacts. This is the so-called activity scenario, its compilation should precede the design. But in life often everything happens differently: let's make such a program so that it has this and that. Well done, and how people will use it, no one thought. The problem is that the finished product cannot be adapted later - the curve of the house is easier to break than repair.
I understand that this is a very common mistake?
Perhaps the most typical. Many people are mistaken, considering that usability, convenience - this applies only to the interface. It often happens that usability is invited when the product is already designed: here we are done, and you are good, set up the correct icons. But an engineering psychologist and a graphic designer are not the same thing. And the curve does not alter the work, all you need to start from scratch, already by the rules. But there are only a few who agree to this: money, people’s labor, time, deadlines are spent. It turns out a sort of suitcase without a handle - and it is a pity to quit, and it is inconvenient to carry. In this form, the product gets to the user. And if its creators were repelled by the consumer, and not by their own fantasies, then the return would be completely different.
Those rules about which you speak, work at the level of logic. Why is there to know psychology?
Instead of the answer I will give one characteristic example. In aviation, there is such a device - artificial horizon. It shows the position of the aircraft relative to the horizon and the pilot needs to navigate in space when the earth is not visible. In fact, it is a ball with a transverse line - on top of the sky, below the ground and the silhouette of the aircraft. It would seem so much easier, but there is one little hitch. The fact is that the device can be constructed in two different ways: to make the earth stationary, and to make the airplane mobile, and vice versa. The Americans secured the plane, and we - the land. It would seem a small difference. However, our engineering psychologists have proved: if an airplane actually flies, then it must be mobile. When the roll angle of the machine is small, there really isn’t much difference and it’s easy to navigate, but when the plane makes a sharp turn, the pilot has to mentally perform complex transformations, imagining how the machine is rotated relative to the ground. And on the device, the opposite is true! Very often, as a result, a person loses orientation, which leads to the most tragic consequences.
Is the pilot always unconsciously relating himself to the aircraft on the screen?
Of course. I even think that the psychologically inadequate artificial horizon became the fault of many disasters - the American version is on Western planes.
Let's go back to less extreme examples of uncomfortable interfaces. How many people are willing to suffer before he closes the program or leaves the site?
It is very individual, it all depends on the type of person and motivation. Of course, on a website a person must achieve a goal in two or three clicks, no more, otherwise he will become confused or forget about what he is looking for. But if you need to get blood from your nose, you will still make it. And if not, drop on the third or fourth click. I know this by myself: when the Internet site of one of the central newspapers changed the layout, I, cursing everything, tried in vain to find the Search button, but did not leave the site, because really needed one old stuff
The usual situation - I had the same thing with one popular news resource. As a result, I stopped reading it. But maybe a new layout is made psychologically right, you just need to get used to it?
Nothing of the kind - once you left, it means that the creators have failed something. Most likely, they wanted to improve the design and add some features. To ennoble them, they all ennobled, only they didn’t think how people would use it.
So, the one who thinks that the outflow of customers after a design change is a temporary phenomenon is wrong? Like, gradually get used to.
That's it. When convenient, people do not leave. Such sites are a typical example of “out of the head” design. In an amicable way, you first need to do research - not marketing or social, but psychological: what people are looking for, why, how much time they are willing to spend on searching, etc.
That is, ideally, each user must be approached individually?
Usability is not just convenience, but convenience for specific people in specific circumstances. If the product is made for an abstract person, then it will never become popular. Before the eyes should always be a prototype. In engineering psychology, there is even such a thing as characters. They create a biography, personality traits, details. First, several characters - you need to sort out all the potential options. In the course of the work, the target groups begin to crystallize and one or more characters remain: for example, a forty housewife, a student, a pensioner, etc.
And then you need to make a product that would satisfy all three characters?
But this is a question. Maybe you need to make three different products - sometimes because the characters are fundamentally different from each other. The project manager, of course, would prefer a universal solution, but it is not always justified. It would be nice to consult with an engineering psychologist.
How important are psychological tricks? Well, it seems that a person often looks into the right corner of the screen, but does not look into the left, etc.
You can attract attention with standard design techniques: color, size. There are, of course, preferences for colors and sizes of icons, but these are the simplest things, a task for a graphic designer. The time a button is pressed, the number of clicks, etc. Do not disclose the causes of human actions. This requires a psychologist who, at the stage of analysis and design, will create adequate tools.
Much more important - what to display on the screen. Imagine, for example, the program interface for traders - this is a huge amount of information. And here, how exactly to reflect, is a secondary question, more importantly - what. And to understand this, you need to understand the work of the trader. And after that, you can prioritize information and program the interface. In general, we again returned to the main rule of usability: we start from human activity.
Will these rules also apply in the case of a small group of people? For example, if we are talking about software for employees of one company?
I'll give you an example again. One of my colleagues designed the interface for a television company, he had to develop a program that would allow editors to work quickly with incoming texts. The interface was not very complicated: you had to select the text, load it, start working with it, etc. Several options were created, but none satisfied customers. The system, in fact, did not work. Some texts were always preferable to others, and there was a war behind them, others, on the contrary, were not interesting to anyone - in general, chaos reigned in the editorial office. It turned out that the imperfection of the interface led to social tensions in the unit. The situation was solved very simply - they abandoned the expanded options of the interface, leaving only one virtual button. It read: “Get the text.” And that's all - the problems are over.
Why?
There was no problem of choice, and the acuteness of relationships between people also disappeared. Editors stopped choosing better texts, now they just received them as they were received. In connection with this case, two conclusions prompt themselves. The first is that the interface should be designed taking into account not only the psychology of the individual, but also the social connections in the group (especially when it comes to intracorporate programs). Secondly, sometimes it is better to deprive a person of the choice and offer him ready-made options.
And if we are dealing, for example, with bank customers who need to communicate clearly about loans? The audience is huge, do you need to investigate it?
Of course. Albeit not so thoroughly - but necessary. Is it more correct to upload all the necessary and unnecessary information to the site? Simple structuring, which is always resorted to by the owners of commercial sites, will not help here. It is subject to formal principles - it's just a series of sections, buttons, so as not to drown in information. Do they need a client? Or why should he, say, search button on the bank's website? I doubt that commercial site developers ask such questions.
You are talking about computer interfaces, but it seems that these rules are universal. In the end, the ill-conceived structure and background information of the shopping center is also a flaw in the interface.
Exactly. Just a computer interface chronologically appeared later than others. In the past, engineering psychologists designed control panels for nuclear power plants, technological productions, instrument panels of airplanes, space and sea ships, cars, etc. At an even more general level, ergonomics is engaged in improving the convenience of widespread things, household appliances and tools. The principles of creating a convenient thing are very similar, although there are of course some differences.
So, the skills of an engineering psychologist or ergonomist will always be useful?
Well, this is already obvious. To create any commercial product you need a usability. The ideas of developers, programmers, on which they had previously relied, are absolutely inadequate. Fortunately, recently Russian businessmen began to understand this.
Most people have never heard of engineering psychology. What is this science?
Engineering psychology is the border area between technology and psychology. This science originated in the middle of the XX century. In the 1950s, there was an impressive leap in the development of technology: jet aircraft appeared, the most complex industrial installations. And after that, the number of human errors in the control of equipment dramatically increased. Some led to serious and even tragic consequences. Previously, the errors were treated very simply: the person is to blame - overlooked, distracted, unqualified. If there were no victims, he was punished - and they safely forgot about the incident. While the accidents were sporadic, such an approach was more or less suited, but then mistakes fell as if from a horn of plenty. It was necessary to punish everyone and several times a day - naturally, it was stupid and pointless. It became clear that the nature of human error has an unaccounted pattern: the fault was the inability of technology to the capabilities of man. Previously, no one set out to make the technique such that it was convenient to work with it, but now there was no choice. Thus was born the ergonomics - the science of labor. And already it included engineering psychology, studying the interaction of man and technology.
That's just before it was necessary to make the equipment convenient for the trained operator, and now - for the mass consumer.
The change of objects is not fundamental, the patterns remain the same. One way or another, science gradually developed, and its results began to be used not only in industrial enterprises, but also in private industries. And in the 1980s, the Americans introduced the concept of usability, which means the field of engineering psychology, dealing with the problems of creating computer interfaces. It sounds crazy in Russian, but no one has yet managed to find the correct equivalent: usability, convenience - everything is bad. So use the English term.
You are improving the interfaces of computer programs. Explain the secret to Apple’s success? Macintosh is considered one of the most convenient systems.
The point is the success or failure of certain decisions. Here, in my opinion, Microsoft has one of the greatest usability divisions in which the interfaces of the developed software are tested and investigated. So it’s wrong to think that convenience only at Apple is wrong. Simply, the multifunctionality that many large developers are fighting for is a double-edged sword. They seek to push as many options as possible into the product. But there is a pattern: 90% of people use the capabilities of the software by 10%, only the advanced users know about the remaining 90% of the functions, and their maximum is 10%. A huge number of options overloads the interface, and the common man has to wade through the jungle to solve a trivial task. Well, what convenience can we talk about here ?!
The more features, the harder it is to achieve usability?
Naturally. The complexity of the product increases, the connections between the functions are multiplied, and the number of possible unplanned situations increases. It all spills on the user. Why did Apple succeed? Mac functionality is “compressed” to a minimum, only those options that a person is looking for in the first place are in sight. Mac has a very simple interface, which is why it has become so popular. But do not indiscriminately blame the usabilityists of other IT corporations - they just preach a different philosophy. It was originally aimed at increasing the functions and complexity of the product.
The conclusion suggests itself: it turns out, a multifunctional product can not be made simple?
In general, yes. One of the main rules of usability says: it is better to make several relatively simple products for different groups of users than one complex and cumbersome and then adapt it for several groups. Anyway, you can't please everyone, but with a narrow specialization, the product at least becomes understandable and convenient.
What other rules are there in usability?
In fact, the main postulate is one: to go not from those tasks that you yourself invent or are able to solve, but from what the user is looking for. It would seem to be a non-original conclusion, but in fact it is very deep. Interface design should begin not with programming, as many people think, but with defining the tasks that a person has to solve, with an understanding of the conditions in which he works, with whom he interacts. This is the so-called activity scenario, its compilation should precede the design. But in life often everything happens differently: let's make such a program so that it has this and that. Well done, and how people will use it, no one thought. The problem is that the finished product cannot be adapted later - the curve of the house is easier to break than repair.
I understand that this is a very common mistake?
Perhaps the most typical. Many people are mistaken, considering that usability, convenience - this applies only to the interface. It often happens that usability is invited when the product is already designed: here we are done, and you are good, set up the correct icons. But an engineering psychologist and a graphic designer are not the same thing. And the curve does not alter the work, all you need to start from scratch, already by the rules. But there are only a few who agree to this: money, people’s labor, time, deadlines are spent. It turns out a sort of suitcase without a handle - and it is a pity to quit, and it is inconvenient to carry. In this form, the product gets to the user. And if its creators were repelled by the consumer, and not by their own fantasies, then the return would be completely different.
Those rules about which you speak, work at the level of logic. Why is there to know psychology?
Instead of the answer I will give one characteristic example. In aviation, there is such a device - artificial horizon. It shows the position of the aircraft relative to the horizon and the pilot needs to navigate in space when the earth is not visible. In fact, it is a ball with a transverse line - on top of the sky, below the ground and the silhouette of the aircraft. It would seem so much easier, but there is one little hitch. The fact is that the device can be constructed in two different ways: to make the earth stationary, and to make the airplane mobile, and vice versa. The Americans secured the plane, and we - the land. It would seem a small difference. However, our engineering psychologists have proved: if an airplane actually flies, then it must be mobile. When the roll angle of the machine is small, there really isn’t much difference and it’s easy to navigate, but when the plane makes a sharp turn, the pilot has to mentally perform complex transformations, imagining how the machine is rotated relative to the ground. And on the device, the opposite is true! Very often, as a result, a person loses orientation, which leads to the most tragic consequences.
Is the pilot always unconsciously relating himself to the aircraft on the screen?
Of course. I even think that the psychologically inadequate artificial horizon became the fault of many disasters - the American version is on Western planes.
Let's go back to less extreme examples of uncomfortable interfaces. How many people are willing to suffer before he closes the program or leaves the site?
It is very individual, it all depends on the type of person and motivation. Of course, on a website a person must achieve a goal in two or three clicks, no more, otherwise he will become confused or forget about what he is looking for. But if you need to get blood from your nose, you will still make it. And if not, drop on the third or fourth click. I know this by myself: when the Internet site of one of the central newspapers changed the layout, I, cursing everything, tried in vain to find the Search button, but did not leave the site, because really needed one old stuff
The usual situation - I had the same thing with one popular news resource. As a result, I stopped reading it. But maybe a new layout is made psychologically right, you just need to get used to it?
Nothing of the kind - once you left, it means that the creators have failed something. Most likely, they wanted to improve the design and add some features. To ennoble them, they all ennobled, only they didn’t think how people would use it.
So, the one who thinks that the outflow of customers after a design change is a temporary phenomenon is wrong? Like, gradually get used to.
That's it. When convenient, people do not leave. Such sites are a typical example of “out of the head” design. In an amicable way, you first need to do research - not marketing or social, but psychological: what people are looking for, why, how much time they are willing to spend on searching, etc.
That is, ideally, each user must be approached individually?
Usability is not just convenience, but convenience for specific people in specific circumstances. If the product is made for an abstract person, then it will never become popular. Before the eyes should always be a prototype. In engineering psychology, there is even such a thing as characters. They create a biography, personality traits, details. First, several characters - you need to sort out all the potential options. In the course of the work, the target groups begin to crystallize and one or more characters remain: for example, a forty housewife, a student, a pensioner, etc.
And then you need to make a product that would satisfy all three characters?
But this is a question. Maybe you need to make three different products - sometimes because the characters are fundamentally different from each other. The project manager, of course, would prefer a universal solution, but it is not always justified. It would be nice to consult with an engineering psychologist.
How important are psychological tricks? Well, it seems that a person often looks into the right corner of the screen, but does not look into the left, etc.
You can attract attention with standard design techniques: color, size. There are, of course, preferences for colors and sizes of icons, but these are the simplest things, a task for a graphic designer. The time a button is pressed, the number of clicks, etc. Do not disclose the causes of human actions. This requires a psychologist who, at the stage of analysis and design, will create adequate tools.
Much more important - what to display on the screen. Imagine, for example, the program interface for traders - this is a huge amount of information. And here, how exactly to reflect, is a secondary question, more importantly - what. And to understand this, you need to understand the work of the trader. And after that, you can prioritize information and program the interface. In general, we again returned to the main rule of usability: we start from human activity.
Will these rules also apply in the case of a small group of people? For example, if we are talking about software for employees of one company?
I'll give you an example again. One of my colleagues designed the interface for a television company, he had to develop a program that would allow editors to work quickly with incoming texts. The interface was not very complicated: you had to select the text, load it, start working with it, etc. Several options were created, but none satisfied customers. The system, in fact, did not work. Some texts were always preferable to others, and there was a war behind them, others, on the contrary, were not interesting to anyone - in general, chaos reigned in the editorial office. It turned out that the imperfection of the interface led to social tensions in the unit. The situation was solved very simply - they abandoned the expanded options of the interface, leaving only one virtual button. It read: “Get the text.” And that's all - the problems are over.
Why?
There was no problem of choice, and the acuteness of relationships between people also disappeared. Editors stopped choosing better texts, now they just received them as they were received. In connection with this case, two conclusions prompt themselves. The first is that the interface should be designed taking into account not only the psychology of the individual, but also the social connections in the group (especially when it comes to intracorporate programs). Secondly, sometimes it is better to deprive a person of the choice and offer him ready-made options.
And if we are dealing, for example, with bank customers who need to communicate clearly about loans? The audience is huge, do you need to investigate it?
Of course. Albeit not so thoroughly - but necessary. Is it more correct to upload all the necessary and unnecessary information to the site? Simple structuring, which is always resorted to by the owners of commercial sites, will not help here. It is subject to formal principles - it's just a series of sections, buttons, so as not to drown in information. Do they need a client? Or why should he, say, search button on the bank's website? I doubt that commercial site developers ask such questions.
You are talking about computer interfaces, but it seems that these rules are universal. In the end, the ill-conceived structure and background information of the shopping center is also a flaw in the interface.
Exactly. Just a computer interface chronologically appeared later than others. In the past, engineering psychologists designed control panels for nuclear power plants, technological productions, instrument panels of airplanes, space and sea ships, cars, etc. At an even more general level, ergonomics is engaged in improving the convenience of widespread things, household appliances and tools. The principles of creating a convenient thing are very similar, although there are of course some differences.
So, the skills of an engineering psychologist or ergonomist will always be useful?
Well, this is already obvious. To create any commercial product you need a usability. The ideas of developers, programmers, on which they had previously relied, are absolutely inadequate. Fortunately, recently Russian businessmen began to understand this.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/17415/
All Articles