The problem svayp-hammer or proceed to adapt
What happens if designers once create custom interfaces for all existing types of people? Imagine a situation where the same site, interface, web page will never look the same, adapting itself over and over again:
Will it be good, does it correspond to the very evolution of humanity and the course of history? Consider this article.
')
Interface selfish
The feeling that ordinary people in these newfangled trends in human centered design never leaves me - there was again no place. The person is again taken out of the interests of business, society, and the state. A person still does not have the slightest freedom to choose the country of residence (and receives permission from above), does not have the slightest freedom to control his own sexual preferences or the potential for chemical expansion of his own consciousness.
However, the design of information systems is far behind the current requirements of society. For example, not a single pizza ordering site today is ready to sell its goods to Tajik Ramadans who do not speak Russian. It turns out that the possibility of using a person of non-Slavic appearance - Italian pizza at night is not seriously considered yet. The real turnaround of interfaces facing the client has not only not yet taken place, but it is not planned seriously. Well, just keep another courier in the night scheme - it is unprofitable for the Owner. And when something is unprofitable for the owner, then any interests of the potential Client simply cease to exist. And so in everything. Always and everywhere decides the customer.
But it is not necessary for anyone. We have adapted to such an interface between man and the faceless Society.
Man is generally able to adapt to everything - and this is our key advantage. We can eat more kinds of food than any other animal. We can withstand the maximum temperature range due to clothing and heated housing. We are able to come to terms with even the housing mortgage, the New Year Blue Light and the official age of consent - although all these things absolutely contradict our physiology and common sense.
And we adapt, adjust, get used to - and even begin to enjoy stability.
The brightest example of such an absolutely illogical, but habitual behavior is a basket in any online store. Where is it? Always in the upper right corner. Does this match the original habits and patterns of human behavior in the supermarket? Not at all.
In no real Auchan you will see a living person who throws the purchased goods into the grocery basket at the ceiling. located at a height of three meters. It does not happen. People take the goods and pull it down, this is the principle of drag & drop, grabbing and then placing it in the trolley below.
Will you be able to find at least 5 online stores that use this completely natural pattern of behavior with the capture of the goods and dragging it to the bottom of the screen? I'm sure not. Design for some reason stubbornly does not want to adapt to such natural habits of a person, even though he screams about it at every corner! Strange, isn't it?
About user control levers
Let's take another popular interface element, about the importance of which rounding up to now hundreds of scientific symposia take place only in Russia a year - the button. The question is comparable in level of importance with the dilemma "from which end should we begin to clean a boiled egg."
Buttons do not exist in wildlife. In their natural environment, they simply do not exist. There is simply nothing to round, as soon as the designer begins to pretend that he is familiar with the school course of anatomy and physiology. And what is there?
There are levers, acquaintance with the principles of which the child fully mastered by the age of one and a half years. The lever is brilliant, natural, functional. And by the way, he is absolutely in the trend of “eco” design.
The lever is used everywhere: in the form of a trigger in a weapon, in the form of a tool, digging sticks, in general absolutely everywhere. When the monkey first picked up a cudgel (and not a button or svayp) - the lever once and for all changed the entire subsequent history of this planet.
But no, the design diligently imposes absolutely monstrous patterns on the fingers, with shaking, double-tapes and other utter and impossible rubble in wildlife. And of course, with the buttons, as with a particular case (accident) of His Majesty Lever, which degenerated into complete deformity. No one bothers that even the fingers themselves need to bend unnaturally in order to use the most advanced and ergonomic interface.
Has the design adapted to the person? Did even one leading guru and style icon have the courage to revise existing libraries of elements and micro-interactions, bringing existing confusion out of spread fingers - under the likeness of billions of years of reality?
But the military, apparently, do not catch fashion trends and do not hold their nose to the wind of the most innovative trends, since they still have not decided to get rid of the trigger in arms. But today the trigger - in fact, no longer needed.
Previously, this mechanism had the most practical sense: by pressing this lever, the burning wick of an arquebus was brought to the fuse and ignited gunpowder. Adjusting the speed of pressing and force - each shooter independently controlled the fire, and hence the shot. But now, with today's technology, the military does not need to activate shooting a pistol or an assault rifle at a swipe, a click, a blinking pupil, or even a voice shout.
No, the military are not retrogrades and not stupid at all, but about the ergonomics and human physiology - any combat warrant officer knows much more than the entire staff of the Guild of Free Designers. And because the trigger lever - will exist forever, and the guidelines and rules of microanimations on these your Internet sites change to non-recognition every two years.
Therefore, all the talk about the fact that every “ordinary” Internet user will soon have the right to customize the design of the general military uniform, the exercise schedule and the strategic plan for the next battle every day - there can be nothing but cheap speculation.
A single charter, a single regime, a single form and standardized weapons, perfect subordination and shooting for the slightest alarmist moods - these are the rules that allow and will allow in the future to defeat any systems created by humanity.
Of course, tracking interface problem areas, collecting and analyzing Big Data, obtaining and processing feedback and machine learning will continue to be possible only when all the collected information is strictly streamlined, standardized and structured according to a single template.
Not to people, but to technology
Continuing to talk about the future of adaptive interfaces is reasonable in only one way - total adaptability to the platforms. Any information, operation, process start should be able to occur in absolutely any interface.
And in general, the line between different types of interfaces should be completely erased: playing XBOX - I should be able to just as easily book tickets to Amsterdam, sitting on Vkontaktik - edit the design layouts of my subordinate, and looking at YouTube vidosiki - at the same time and pay fines Traffic police, while not even switching between tabs, screens, desktops, etc.
Without turning off the solitaire, I have to buy a pizza home, and draw up a passport from the phone - without interrupting the current call to my beloved mother. I should not be interested in the compatibility of platforms, operating systems, frameworks, database conflicts and competition of manufacturers. Everything is available everywhere and always, and any information, function, request is called instantly from any other process in real time - this is what a real adaptive interface is.
The interface is not tied to a specific wearable gadget - run from the wall of the house, from the handrail in public transport, from the price tag to any product in the supermarket. The interface that frees a person from cluttering up pockets and briefcases with plastic boxes, cords, and chargers. An interface that is not adaptive to humans, but to the technologies that serve them.
But such an interface will certainly not be created by today's “draftsmen of gray squares”, but by real engineers, technology developers, who are moving forward the possibilities themselves, and not the ways of their visual implementation on the screens.
Conclusion
First, the technology (opportunity) always comes to the forefront of our civilization, then the information content itself (content), and only the third wave will be swept by visual designers who will vividly and emotionally present the fruits of the first two to us, while at the same time trying to minimize our efforts and in general in the process of controlling the situation.
Related Links:
→ Wearable gadgets - evil
→ What do people really want?
- day of the week
- Times of Day
- exchange rates
- weather
- history of past clicks
- Zodiac sign
- menstrual cycle
- current pulse and even the amount of coffee drunk in the morning.
Will it be good, does it correspond to the very evolution of humanity and the course of history? Consider this article.
')
Interface selfish
The feeling that ordinary people in these newfangled trends in human centered design never leaves me - there was again no place. The person is again taken out of the interests of business, society, and the state. A person still does not have the slightest freedom to choose the country of residence (and receives permission from above), does not have the slightest freedom to control his own sexual preferences or the potential for chemical expansion of his own consciousness.
The world does not at all turn to face man - the world is marginalized. Crowds of immigrants, the victory of Trump, Diana Shurygin and Gosh Rubchinsky clearly indicate that the fashion for the noble digital hipsterism has died.
However, the design of information systems is far behind the current requirements of society. For example, not a single pizza ordering site today is ready to sell its goods to Tajik Ramadans who do not speak Russian. It turns out that the possibility of using a person of non-Slavic appearance - Italian pizza at night is not seriously considered yet. The real turnaround of interfaces facing the client has not only not yet taken place, but it is not planned seriously. Well, just keep another courier in the night scheme - it is unprofitable for the Owner. And when something is unprofitable for the owner, then any interests of the potential Client simply cease to exist. And so in everything. Always and everywhere decides the customer.
But it is not necessary for anyone. We have adapted to such an interface between man and the faceless Society.
Man is generally able to adapt to everything - and this is our key advantage. We can eat more kinds of food than any other animal. We can withstand the maximum temperature range due to clothing and heated housing. We are able to come to terms with even the housing mortgage, the New Year Blue Light and the official age of consent - although all these things absolutely contradict our physiology and common sense.
And we adapt, adjust, get used to - and even begin to enjoy stability.
In our very nature, there is an opportunity to come to terms with the interface of any quality, as long as it remains the same day after day, allowing us to learn and use further mechanical memory for interactions.
The brightest example of such an absolutely illogical, but habitual behavior is a basket in any online store. Where is it? Always in the upper right corner. Does this match the original habits and patterns of human behavior in the supermarket? Not at all.
In no real Auchan you will see a living person who throws the purchased goods into the grocery basket at the ceiling. located at a height of three meters. It does not happen. People take the goods and pull it down, this is the principle of drag & drop, grabbing and then placing it in the trolley below.
Will you be able to find at least 5 online stores that use this completely natural pattern of behavior with the capture of the goods and dragging it to the bottom of the screen? I'm sure not. Design for some reason stubbornly does not want to adapt to such natural habits of a person, even though he screams about it at every corner! Strange, isn't it?
About user control levers
Let's take another popular interface element, about the importance of which rounding up to now hundreds of scientific symposia take place only in Russia a year - the button. The question is comparable in level of importance with the dilemma "from which end should we begin to clean a boiled egg."
Buttons do not exist in wildlife. In their natural environment, they simply do not exist. There is simply nothing to round, as soon as the designer begins to pretend that he is familiar with the school course of anatomy and physiology. And what is there?
There are levers, acquaintance with the principles of which the child fully mastered by the age of one and a half years. The lever is brilliant, natural, functional. And by the way, he is absolutely in the trend of “eco” design.
The lever is used everywhere: in the form of a trigger in a weapon, in the form of a tool, digging sticks, in general absolutely everywhere. When the monkey first picked up a cudgel (and not a button or svayp) - the lever once and for all changed the entire subsequent history of this planet.
And how many interfaces with a lever you can count today?
But no, the design diligently imposes absolutely monstrous patterns on the fingers, with shaking, double-tapes and other utter and impossible rubble in wildlife. And of course, with the buttons, as with a particular case (accident) of His Majesty Lever, which degenerated into complete deformity. No one bothers that even the fingers themselves need to bend unnaturally in order to use the most advanced and ergonomic interface.
Has the design adapted to the person? Did even one leading guru and style icon have the courage to revise existing libraries of elements and micro-interactions, bringing existing confusion out of spread fingers - under the likeness of billions of years of reality?
But the military, apparently, do not catch fashion trends and do not hold their nose to the wind of the most innovative trends, since they still have not decided to get rid of the trigger in arms. But today the trigger - in fact, no longer needed.
Previously, this mechanism had the most practical sense: by pressing this lever, the burning wick of an arquebus was brought to the fuse and ignited gunpowder. Adjusting the speed of pressing and force - each shooter independently controlled the fire, and hence the shot. But now, with today's technology, the military does not need to activate shooting a pistol or an assault rifle at a swipe, a click, a blinking pupil, or even a voice shout.
Oh, how much better would be the usability of such a modern and modern machine, imagine? And how many prestigious design awards could be collected with such a clickable weapon?
No, the military are not retrogrades and not stupid at all, but about the ergonomics and human physiology - any combat warrant officer knows much more than the entire staff of the Guild of Free Designers. And because the trigger lever - will exist forever, and the guidelines and rules of microanimations on these your Internet sites change to non-recognition every two years.
Therefore, all the talk about the fact that every “ordinary” Internet user will soon have the right to customize the design of the general military uniform, the exercise schedule and the strategic plan for the next battle every day - there can be nothing but cheap speculation.
A single charter, a single regime, a single form and standardized weapons, perfect subordination and shooting for the slightest alarmist moods - these are the rules that allow and will allow in the future to defeat any systems created by humanity.
Of course, tracking interface problem areas, collecting and analyzing Big Data, obtaining and processing feedback and machine learning will continue to be possible only when all the collected information is strictly streamlined, standardized and structured according to a single template.
Not to people, but to technology
Continuing to talk about the future of adaptive interfaces is reasonable in only one way - total adaptability to the platforms. Any information, operation, process start should be able to occur in absolutely any interface.
And in general, the line between different types of interfaces should be completely erased: playing XBOX - I should be able to just as easily book tickets to Amsterdam, sitting on Vkontaktik - edit the design layouts of my subordinate, and looking at YouTube vidosiki - at the same time and pay fines Traffic police, while not even switching between tabs, screens, desktops, etc.
Without turning off the solitaire, I have to buy a pizza home, and draw up a passport from the phone - without interrupting the current call to my beloved mother. I should not be interested in the compatibility of platforms, operating systems, frameworks, database conflicts and competition of manufacturers. Everything is available everywhere and always, and any information, function, request is called instantly from any other process in real time - this is what a real adaptive interface is.
The interface is not tied to a specific wearable gadget - run from the wall of the house, from the handrail in public transport, from the price tag to any product in the supermarket. The interface that frees a person from cluttering up pockets and briefcases with plastic boxes, cords, and chargers. An interface that is not adaptive to humans, but to the technologies that serve them.
But such an interface will certainly not be created by today's “draftsmen of gray squares”, but by real engineers, technology developers, who are moving forward the possibilities themselves, and not the ways of their visual implementation on the screens.
Conclusion
First, the technology (opportunity) always comes to the forefront of our civilization, then the information content itself (content), and only the third wave will be swept by visual designers who will vividly and emotionally present the fruits of the first two to us, while at the same time trying to minimize our efforts and in general in the process of controlling the situation.
Related Links:
→ Wearable gadgets - evil
→ What do people really want?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/402103/
All Articles