Slashdot Mirror
Top Research Labs in Human-Computer Interaction?
legLess writes: "Jakob Nielsen's latest Useit column lists his opinion of the best HCI research labs, from 'The Dawn of Time' (1945) 'til now. Xerox PARC made the list each decade, naturally. He says that future HCI research is in jeopardy, partly due to Universities backing away from 'real-world' research, and partly because 'HCI has rarely been the first priority of new research organizations, so by the time research managers recognize the need for it and build up a world-class HCI team, it's often too late.' Is he right about the best labs? Is he right about his other conclusions?"
Human-Computer Interfaces aren't much of an item any more. I think he is looking in the wrong direction. He is looking at how people interact with their home PC. If you look at the last few years the way we interact with our PC's hasn't changed much. But PC's haven't changed much as well. Yes, there is more disk space, faste CPU's etc. but how they work and what we do with it hasn't changed much. That means there isn't much need for a better interface.
Only a new technology need a new interface, the way we currently interact with PC's is around for some time now and everybody is fine with it. If you want to see intresting thing I think you should be looking at newer devices like mobile phone, PDA's etc.
It's worth noting that Don Norman, the former VP of Apple's Advanced Technology Group and the author of The Design of Everyday Things (among others) is currently a professor at Northwestern University. He's teaching a class this quarter, the future design of everyday things (sorry--login required for the class page), and it's fascinating!
Josh
Or, in different words, if musical instruments were designed like software, instead of violins and pianos, we'd probably only be getting those electronic children's books that play a melody when you touch different parts on the page. Kind of intuitive and easy, but not exactly very powerful or interesting.
HCI has rarely been the first priority of new research organizations
Thats true but the real failing has been its use in industry, HCI is rarely the first priority there either, being often seen as expensive, time consuming and something separate to the traditional design process.
How many projects actually fail because the developers designed the system that the client wanted, not what the users would realistically use on a day to day basis.
The most practical aspects of HCI focus on understanding the user, and most modern software design methodologies take account of this...actual use of HCI in RL is really lacking.
Its one one the main reasons projects fail in the long term, ok poor project management and vague requirements do the most damage but its still pretty important
While the interface to Windows is generally pretty good, I think it's a bit unfair to give credit to MS for the research behind it, as so many of the good ideas have been borrowed from elsewhere. Microsoft are good at taking an idea and enhancing it, but I don't think it's reasonable to put them up with Xerox PARC and the like.
OTOH, Microsoft do run a number of research laboratories now. The one just down the road from me in Cambridge, UK is looking at things way beyond current Windows UI. I suspect this sort of facility is the reason for Jakob's prophecy that MS research will be a big contender in the coming years.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well, first of all, a lot of things from Microsoft Research creep into their products (like their sub-pixel font anti-aliasing).
And second of all, Microsoft doesn't want the brightest Software (and Hardware? Not sure) Research minds in the world working for other companies, so they hire them just so that they won't work for anyone else.
One of the primary difficulties faced by HCI within industry is that the field is still ill defined and misunderstood by those who are practitioners of software development. A very common view is that HCI is the study of how to make software that is easy to use for the first time, naïve user. For instance, once comment posted about this story states "...if musical instruments were designed like software, instead of violins and pianos, we'd probably only be getting those electronic children's books that play a melody when you touch different parts on the page. Kind of intuitive and easy, but not exactly very powerful or interesting."
This same misperception that HCI is only about software for naïve users may also explain why it is so well embraced by the major players in enterprise web development and not is other areas such as application software. In the world of web development it is widely accepted that all users are naïve users. (This is partly why HCI practitioners such as Jokob Nielson are able to be so prolific in the area of web software.) However, in application development, the common view is the software is being developed for "expert users" and that catering to the needs of the naïve user through HCI will only dilute the program's capabilities needed by the "experts" .
This same attitude is also leads software development teams to think that they can create user interface for naïve users simply by creating a lot of dialog boxes and wizards. (Yuck!)
The fact is that the field of HCI is much broader than this common and simplistic understanding. While HCI does have something important to say about the way applications are designed for the naïve user, this aspect of usability is only one component of HCI. HCI also has a lot to add to the design of software systems to be used by "expert" users.
People such as the ethnographer (Who works to understand how the end user gets their work done.) and the information architect (Who designs user interfaces for information-rich software systems.) are also working within the field of HCI. Their contributions are probably most useful when developing software systems that are not geared towards the naïve user such as Photoshop or even an enterprise application. In these applications it is even more important that the software accommodate the user and fit within the user's normal workflow.
I have put together a short paper giving information about the different roles that are exist in the domain of user interface software and how these roles fit together fit together to form a loose user interface software development process. It is available at http://www.bobowen.org. I also recommend that software development practicioners get and read About Face by Alan Cooper for a better understanding of how user interfaces can be designed without resorting to all these dialog boxes.
No "ask slashdot" FOR A WEEK, and this is the shit we get?
FUCK U
So, instead of the Nielsen Norman Group, we should be listening to Business Week? Only one of the lists you linked to was about HCI research--an automatic indexer of published journal articles, many of which--even in the Interface Design subsection--are only loosely connected to research toward making more usable interfaces, which, yes, is what Nielsen (rightly) harps on.
NN/g may not be "avant garde," but they're taken seriously by businesses, which makes your counterpoint of Business Week's lists faintly ironic. You don't need to be an interface researcher to make observations about the state of applied usability research, you need to be someone who studies usability in applications for living.