Tim Brown On Current Design Challenges

prostoalex writes "Tim Brown is the CEO of IDEO, design company that is quite famous for its work on designing office chairs, Palm computers, Microsoft mice, Nike shoes, etc. MIT Technology Review interviewed Tim Brown on current challenges in the design world, exciting fields for a designer to be in, current annoyances in the user interface design."

Comments

i-Mode has nothing to do with design

[xtal]

The idea that people are going to use their mobile devices to do things like watch movies is just wrong. I think this is as the reason that the Japanese i-Mode has been so successfulâ"its applications are very small.

I'll agree using a cell phone to look at movies and pictures is stupid.

However, i-Mode services took off because anyone can easily make themselves an i-Mode application and have it run. Here, I am limited to very expensive applications and only ones that have been endorsed by my digital cell provider. Meaning that I have never so much as LOOKED at any of those features. I'm not going to spend a quarter to send a instant message. I'd balk at a nickel. I'll just call - I pay a flat fee for voice, to a point. Text uses a FRACTION of that bandwidth.

The phone companies want to be in the applications business, and so long as they control the content, these services are just a bad joke. That's the secret of i-Mode.

Re:i-Mode has nothing to do with design

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears that Tim Brown has actually managed to make the leap from the mess that was WAP in Europe two or three years ago. Basically it took a large, online medium (The web) and tried to just force it onto a mobile device. As he notes, it didn't work and no one wanted it. WAP is dead.

Seems as though the major 3G vendors in Europe could do with contracting Tim, though. All of them are desperate to push their mobile platforms as some sort of miniture web platform. But as Tim notes, do you really need or want to watch streaming video on a mobile? It seems that they are all so wrapped up in the technical side of things that someone forgot to ask the people they're trying to sell too.

My personal opinion is that 3G will fail to take off until the vendors drop all pretense of it being some sort of mini-web device and actually recognise that people do not want to watch a postage stamp sized weather report video.[1]

What do I know; I don't have billions of Euros in 3G licences I'm desperatly trying to claw back.

[1]: This is an actual advert from 3 here in the U.K. An example of a phone being used to watch a weather report. It looks very nice, sure, but what extra information does a little colour 3D map with clouds on offer instead of a spoken report?

Re:i-Mode has nothing to do with design

[d99-sbr]

What would be good would be a browser that could work out what was interesting, and strip out all the rest. This is a nontrivial requirement though, and maybe I will just have to restrict my browsing to those sites that I know to be set up for my small screen.

This is exactly what XML could be really useful for, in theory. In the best of worlds proper content markup would enable you to browse your material in whatever way you wanted.

Sadly, McLuhan's ideas makes this pure utopia. The medium and presentation greatly affect the content in most situations, which make machine interpretation of whats "interesting" extremely difficult. We're shooting at a very moving target.

An example: The New York Times is excellent to read from dead trees. It also transfers reasonably to high resolution screens, but as everybody knows, reading long articles online just isn't as pleasant. Now transferring it to my 1.25" cell phone screen just isn't gonna cut it at all. Too many words, too little information.

The only papers that have been even remotely successful in going WAP here in Sweden are the tabloids. They write short pieces that convert well into a handful of WAP cards. Oops, there I go rambling again.

Make Ergonomics Open Source!

[Lieutenant_Dan]

I think that the designs implemented could be further enhanced by having the blueprints and patents available to the Open Source developer community. Their dedication and strict attention to detail would allow these corporations to tap into new markets.

We must consider what the impact on the global market that these products will have. Will they be able to reduce the inflation while increasing the gross national product? Only with a strong currency can a country have a voice.

By communication with its neighbors, any country can forge alliances and trade agreements that increase its population's well-being. Their health is one valuable asset when one wants to compete against some of the established powers.

Medical progress in turn will be accelerated by the sharing the knowledge and a strong investement in R&D. Only then can we liberate the world from all the ails and diseases.

So in summary, if the patents are made open source, we can probably find a cure for cancer.

Re:Make Ergonomics Open Source!

[ch-chuck]

It depends on the funding - how was Salk's research paid for? Who bought the lab equipment, glassware, chemicals, test animals etc? If it was state taxpayer subsidised then the backers (taxpayers, public domain) should get the benefits. However modern pharmaecutical companies invest their OWN bucks (and their stockholders) into R&D to create lifesaving drugs, and they naturally want to recoup that investment, plus profits to plow into further research. They simply cannot afford to invest 500 million into a new drug, only to have some other lab steal that work and simply make the pills cheap.

However, patent holders need to pay attention to their public image - patents are useful up to a point, but beyond that the holders start to look like criminal extortionists. Patenting something to improve a product consumers have a choice in usually works, but people in need of new lifesaving drugs who can't afford it are difficult to turn away. It starts to look like a price gouger taking advantage of a crisis to reap a bundle (like people selling water for $10 / gallon after a hurricane, etc).

Feature Creep

[Lothar]

"Well, one big problem is feature creep. Companies feel pressured to add features, because they want to put a check mark in every check box in the product review magazines"

That seems to be true anywhere these days. Feature creep is at least as bad when it comes to software.

Network Selection

[BigBadBri]

"Iâ(TM)d want my tablet or my PDA or maybe even my phone to use the best network available wherever it is. So if Iâ(TM)m in my office, I donâ(TM)t want to be using the cell network, I want to be using WiFi, because I can get ten times the bandwidth that way. But as soon as I walk out of my building, I donâ(TM)t want to have to say: OK, Iâ(TM)m flipping from one to another. For this to happen, service providers like Verizon would have to say: we're going to manage you your experience, whatever network that youâ(TM)re on."

Why expect the network to handle this?

The OS should be able to monitor WiFi signal strength, retried packets, etc., and make the decision to switch to the mobile network automatically.

And a periodic retry of the WiFi network isn't going to cost the earth, in processing or in battery life.

The more things change . . ..

[vizualizr]

I have absolutely no expertise in interface design, and almost as little REAL expertise in hard-core technology, but I am a designer by profession; I'm a Landscape Architect - mostly designing neighborhoods, resorts, and other places where we live out our day to day lives.

One challenge we face in the design projects I'm involved with that I'm fairly certain translates to the kind of design Brown talks about is the "lowest common denominator" problem. We can design some public plaza space or neighborhood that is absolutely award-winning, and on the cutting edge of the design world. The problem is, we often have to (at our client's direction) water our design down to something that the average Joe can understand.

The general populace tends to be slow to accept radical changes to familiar things like the way a suburban street or a park feels. They have an expectation that has built up over several years, and things that are different (and often much, much better) seem strange, and are sometimes rejected outright. We fear change. Change is bad. The same is often true for things like community zoning boards (made up of average Joe, average Bill, and average Jane).

Its an interesting problem, and the major challenge for us is to keep our designs current and progressive without succumbing to the temptation to just arbitrarily "dumb down" our work.

Re:The more things change . . ..

[pubjames]

The general populace tends to be slow to accept radical changes to familiar things like the way a suburban street or a park feels. They have an expectation that has built up over several years, and things that are different (and often much, much better) seem strange, and are sometimes rejected outright. We fear change. Change is bad. The same is often true for things like community zoning boards (made up of average Joe, average Bill, and average Jane).

I'm sorry but this demonstrates an aspect of designers that I find somewhat annoying. If you are designing for the average Joe, Bill and Jane, and they aren't happy with your designs, it's your fault, not theirs.

It's like when I'm working on a piece of multimedia/website with a graphic designer and they come up with some original concept that the client rejects on practical grounds -- the designer goes into a big huff and thinks the client is stupid.

Some designers always tend to think their ideas are the best in the world. Really good designers design what people want and are humble about it. Some designers seem to think that because they can come up with original ideas they are in some way "brilliant", but there are a lot of people with a lot of good ideas and good ideas are not restricted to designers. As my old boss used to say, "ideas are cheap".

(Sorry if this comes over a bit strong. I don't really mean this as an attack on you personally, it's just one of my pet peeves.)

Re:The more things change . . ..

[Salamander]

Reading your post, the phrase "too clever by half" comes to mind. If the client doesn't want some avant-garde artsy design, you should know that up front; if you're overshooting their design comfort level and then having to "water it down" you're wasting their time and money. The problem is, everyone who studies design wants to be on the cutting edge, but there's really only room for 10% (at most) to be there; the rest should get used to working on less exciting projects unless/until they can prove that they deserve to be one of the few who get to do the good stuff. It's the same as in programming - a few get to strike out in bold new directions, the rest earn their stripes by making derivatives or lesser enhancements.

It's not about people thinking change is bad. You only say that because you want to be the one making the changes, and I suspect you'd seem just as conservative about unasked-for "screwing around with stuff" in areas outside your own specialty. Do you use any software? How would you like it if the entire UI changed, just because someone thought they had a better idea? How about if your ZIP code or telephone area code kept changing, just because someone came up with a more "logical" way to assign them? If some traffic designer had the "bright idea" to make some of the streets in your neighborhood one-way, would you just say "cool, change is good"? Hmmm. What this is about is balancing change with consistency. Too bad if that leaves you frustrated because there aren't enough opportunities to do what you want to do.

Re:The more things change . . ..

[ThaReetLad]

The problem with clients is that they usually don't know what they want. They know what they DON'T want, and have one or two fuzzy ideas about some small irrelevent aspect of the end solution. Part of my job is creating GUI's for a large scientific application, and the biggest argument we get into with the client (ie marketing) is over the colour of the damn icons, rather than how you actually access feature x. They key to good design has got to be functional simplicity with useful words like paradigm, metaphor and ergonomics.

What I want out of a mobile device is something which gives me directions to the nearest pub when it hears me say "Damn, I could murder a pint"

And another thing, why are mobile phones generally still things you hold up to your head to use, rather than always coming with usable wireless headsets?

Computer interfaces

[pubjames]

I really wish someone would give these guys a pile of cash to redesign computer GUIs. I can't be the only one that is sick of the slow pace of development of computer interfaces. We really haven't progressed much since the work of Xerox Park.

What we need are some designers - who are not technies or nerds - to sit down and completely redesign the interface from scratch. Forget the "windows" metaphor, forget "icons" and clicking with the mouse - really start from first principals.

If you've ever sat down with someone who hasn't used a computer much and watch them struggle to do the simplest things, you'll understand how bad current GUIs are. The trouble is people that use computers are so used to their bad design that they fail to notice it. For example, when I press the on button, I want it to turn on. Instantly. I don't want to have to wait several minutes for it to "warm up" like the old TVs used to. And when I press the off button, I want it to turn off. Instantly. And if I press the on button again, I want to see the same stuff on the screen as when I last switched it off. And that's just the functionality of the on-off button!

It's 2003 for christsakes. Why am I still using an interface that was designed in the 1970's, when computers had a tiny fraction of the power and functionality they currently have?

Re:Computer interfaces

[hoagieslapper]

A computer will never be truely user freindly until it under stands plain spoke words and gives us what we want, not what we asked for.

Since most of us do ot really know what we want, a truely user freindly interface is a myth.

Re:Computer interfaces

[skaffen42]

A computer will never be truely user freindly until it under stands plain spoke words and gives us what we want, not what we asked for.

Dude, you just described my relationship with my ex-girlfriend! I thought we were incompatible, but now I realize she just wasn't user friendly enough!

Apple?

[peterprior]

I would be interested to see what this guys opinions on apple designs are, and why they are so goddam desirable.

Re:Apple?

[Draoi]

I would be interested to see what this guys opinions on apple designs are, and why they are so goddam desirable.

I'd suspect they'd be positive, seeing as IDEO also designed Apple products, though all of these were pre-Jonathan Ive.

This guy designed the Duo Dock. Cool ....

He just offended the readers of /.

[bigmouth_strikes]

TR: What kind of people do the best design?

BROWN: Well, I can tell you what doesn't workâ"and that is to have a whole bunch of people who are deep in their own technical domain but have no interest in engaging with the others.

Heh, good thing you don't find many of those around /. or any programming sweatshop :)

Seriously though, this is dead on. Too often UI design are developed by the same people hacking the low level stuff or the business side of an application. At the end of the project, usually 6 weeks after schedule, they have to release what they used for testing since there is no time to sit and think about usability.

Re:Cool! This guy works down the street from me...

[Salamander]

Heh. Same here. Why, just this morning I was making the turn onto Maguire, and I was thinking "what is the natural nickname for people who work at IDEO, anyway?" I don't think they'd appreciate the answer I came up with.

Stupid 3G example from Notel

[GGardner]

actually recognise that people do not want to watch a postage stamp sized weather report video.

My favorite example of this is a Nortel ad that was running frequently last year. It had a guy who was going to be speaking at some big meeting, but forget his speech at the office. He used his mobile videophone to have his office assistant read it to him quietly, and he repeated it to the unknowing audience, with the phone sitting hidden on the lectern.

Now, what use is the live video in this case? I can get the same functionality today with my plain-old 2G phone (no video, of course). If you just need to repeat what someone is telling you over the phone, you sure don't need the live video. If this gee-whiz, look-how-cool-the-future-is example, unconstrained by reality, is the best 3G can do, isn't it in a whole heap of trouble?

3G is the feature creep personified

[gilesjuk]

All the adverts I've seen for 3G devices revolve around gimmics. Ooo look you can watch some video, you can phone your mates and have a laugh showing them things.

Currently 3G is an executive toy and needs a decent application. There are some instances where video calls could be very useful, doctors, police etc. but for the masses there has to be something that makes it worthwhile. Many people are happy with text messaging and instant messaging when online.

Re:3G is the feature creep personified

[gilesjuk]

If using 3G they can provide faster than 56k internet connections on the move (ie. connect phone to laptop) for a decent price then 3G would actually be useful.

Interface Interference

[howman]

As an Industrial Designer specializing in User Interface for the integration of the virtual and the physical, the two bigest problems I come up against is first convincing the manufacturer of the value of Interface design, which is getting easier I am happy to say, and secondly convincing them that a product that is a 'Swiss Army Knife' is perhaps not such a great idea. It is much better to have a product which does one thing well rather than a product that does a million things half assed.

We constantly see this in applications and new technology where the engeneers come up with all this facinating stuff and try to cram it into a device hoping customers will overlook the lack of need and only see the prettyness.

As product designers we are at a cross roads where we are only now starting to understand which services and abilities people want grouped together in a single appliance. This is not limited strictly to produts. We are seeing it in services as well. Things like digital television, cell phone service plans as well as in cell phones and PDAs.

Cell phones are great with a camera built in, perhaps even the ability to take a 5 second video, but there is realy no need for a cell phone which is a video camera, no matter how cool it may be to own one. Video cameras do a much better job of capturing video. In the same way you would not want a video camera which had cell phone capabilities... well perhaps you would, but unless your part of a profitably large enough group of consumers, you probably won't get it.

Please, stay on one topic.

[gosand]

What we need are some designers - who are not technies or nerds - to sit down and completely redesign the interface from scratch. Forget the "windows" metaphor, forget "icons" and clicking with the mouse - really start from first principals.

Not going to happen. That is like asking Alexander Graham Bell to design a cell-phone. You have to go in with knowledge about the function of a product. If not you either get something that looks great but doesn't do anything, or a single-purpose device. Computers are neither of those.

If you've ever sat down with someone who hasn't used a computer much and watch them struggle to do the simplest things, you'll understand how bad current GUIs are. The trouble is people that use computers are so used to their bad design that they fail to notice it.

I have, and it is frustrating for everyone. But is it the design that is wrong, or the person? My mom didn't know anything much about computers until a year or two ago. She still struggles with the interface. My 8 year old neice picked it up very quickly. Don't blame the interface when the problem might be in the mind of the user. After all, in another generation there won't be anyone alive who remembers when there weren't computers.

For example, when I press the on button, I want it to turn on. Instantly. I don't want to have to wait several minutes for it to "warm up" like the old TVs used to. And when I press the off button, I want it to turn off. Instantly. And if I press the on button again, I want to see the same stuff on the screen as when I last switched it off. And that's just the functionality of the on-off button!

This is functionality, not design. Yeah, this would be a nice thing, but it has nothing to do with the interface design. You have to wait for the hardware behind the curtain to catch up to this idea. So you want a big, embedded computer. We'll probably get there some day, but it has nothing to do with UI design.

It's 2003 for christsakes. Why am I still using an interface that was designed in the 1970's, when computers had a tiny fraction of the power and functionality they currently have?

Umm, because the interface doesn't rely on the power and functionality of the device? So which is it? You want a super-powerful, multi-function computer that is instant-on that everyone intuitively knows how to operate? Gee, anything else? Maybe we could fit them on the head of a pin too. How about infinite storage?

I am all for forward thinking, but let's put a little more emphasis on the thinking part.

WAP is not dead

[rexguo]

Although originally designed for mobile web surfing, WAP is now used a lot by content vendors as delivery mechanism for pictures, ringtones and java games. Even Nokia does it with their Club Nokia WAP site and its insert-coin download stations. The reason is simple. The users pay for the WAP pull, and all the vendor has to pay for is a simple OTA bookmark or something similiar. So WAP is far from dead, and has found its usefulness in areas that it wasn't designed for. Just like what the WWW is.