Interview with Donald Norman about interfaces

If anyone understands at least a little man-machine interfaces, then this is Donald Norman, professor, author of the book “Design of the Future Things” and co-founder of the Nielsen Norman Group.

In addition to working as a consultant for major technology companies and automakers, Norman was Vice President of the Advanced Technology Group at Apple, famous for good consumer design.

Norman took time out of his busy schedule and book tour to talk to a CNET News.com correspondent about what designers and developers are doing right, what they are missing and what interfaces might be in the technologies of the future.
')
So, when will we get rid of the mice?
Why get rid of something if it works well? .. The problem here is not so much in the mouse itself as in tasks that require long periods of repetitive movements. The real question is how do we interact with our technology? The keyboard is still best suited for text input, and the selection of objects is best done by pointing the cursor.

What is the potential of multitouch technology that we see with Apple and Microsoft?
Touch-screen is really effective for some things, but not for everything. It is effective in operations with graphics, where you need to manipulate an object and at the same time position on the screen, and possibly rotate, as well as in applications where several people want to participate at the same time. This may be good for collective problem solving, but it’s not a tool that can replace everything.

With the spread of desktop widgets, skins for programs and Web 2.0 applications, the standard appearance of the software disappears. Is this a problem for human-machine interaction?
What matters is how easily these systems are trained. As long as they use the old principles of operations, there are no problems. I do not think that Web 2.0 interfaces or multitouch technology are very different from what we are all used to. If they are done well, then such systems are quite compatible, easily mastered and add more pleasure and efficiency to the interaction.

A significant part of the process of shopping in a modern person occurs online, where he can not take the product in hand. Many decide to buy based on the number of functions that the manufacturer managed to cram into the product. How do designers and manufacturers teach people to value quality, not quantity of functions?
I have one friend from the world of business, he works for one of the largest software companies, and so he complains that this is the law: every year they have to add more functions, more buttons and complicate everything because users urgently demand it ... What we used to do so, it is to view reviews of goods before purchase, to study both professional and amateur assessment. Do not you do it online?

Required. You know, I work at CNET.
I spent a lot of time on your CNET Reviews, but one of the problems I discovered was that reviewers are not normal people; they are enthusiasts. I mean, that's why they became columnists ... I see it when I read both computer reviews and cell phone reviews, and so on. People who write them are often experts in all competing products and therefore turn us into fans of the functional. They are well-meaning, they are smart people, just like you. But you can not help but to compare one product with another and say: "Well, there is no such function in this, but there is one"

What are some of the changes you expect to see in humans as a result of our increasingly tight communication with computers, electronics, and robots?
For years I tirelessly repeated: “We should not adapt to technology, it should adapt to us”. Now I think it is not. Yes, we do not have to adapt to every random technology. But on the other hand, very much in our modern life has arisen as a result of adaptation to the surrounding technologies, be it heating systems, lighting, telephone or television.

If many years ago you asked me to say what I thought about SMS technology, I would say: “Well, you, this is too difficult an interface. Lord, why, you have to press a button three times to get one letter. This is ridiculous". However, people did not just learn this, but they learned superbly. So here it is, in front of you, adaptation.

Retreating from the topic, I will say: I think that age does not matter here ... I think it’s a matter of lifestyle ... In my case it was easy, because I helped her develop and improve this technology, so I learned it in the process. And to take other people: she suddenly fell on them, so it's clear that it's hard to keep up.

The question is not how technically advanced you are or how quickly you learn. I think there are things that take many hours to master them ... You just do not want to kill 20 hours of your life for this. But many children, they have time to spend it for just such things.

What is the main problem facing automakers who are trying to implement as many computer control devices in cars as possible?
They pretty well succeeded in computerizing the engine ... The anti-lock braking system and the stabilization system are also controlled by computers and made very well.

Another thing - the control system. When the car thinks that you are driving too fast, drive out of your row ... and starts to take control, then problems arise ... The row control system on the multi-lane road, I think, is a good thing, but you should use it only as a warning device and not as controlling.

There are many cases where the so-called intellectual system behaved inadequately, because it is not intelligence, but guessing. So I'm a fan of complete automation ... The current intermediate stage is too dangerous. What if I specifically move out of the lane?

Do you mean drive around something? I'm trying to imagine a situation where you do not turn on the turn signal in order to change lanes.
Come on, most rebuilt not including turn signals.

You talked about the cacophony of sounds and that there is a need for more natural sound signals. Explain what you mean?
This morning I would be on a talk show and asked me the exact same question. And I suddenly came up with a great example. Look here (pause ... WHAM, he slams the door loudly). What did you hear?

Was it boo? Maybe how the door closes?
You see, it was not an electronic pip-pip-pip, which, as you know, means a signal that the door is closed. The characteristic “boo” automatically informs you about closing the door ... as opposed to what some engineers say: “Oh! When we get to this stage, it can be important, so it’s better to signal a person, and where can I get a really cheap signal? ”

Many signals really don't look like anything.
They are absolutely random, and we have to learn their meaning ... Recently, in the hospital, I was standing in the corridor and talking to several doctors. And then one of the speakers above our heads began this “peep-peep-peep”, and I asked: “What does this sound mean?”. They answered me: “Oh, no one knows this, so we just don’t pay attention to him.”