Raitis Linde

I am very interested in Human Computer Interaction (HCI) classess I am taking now. So this time about mental models that we were looking at.

The idea of the mental models seems very useful to me, as it is important to take into account what is going on in people’s heads  in order to make a successful user interface design (and of course other kind of design). With the successful design I mean one that user can learn easily and naturaly and use it effectively.

Quick attempt to make OpenID interface easy to use (HCI classes)

OpenID interface proposal

As the task for discussions in HCI class we needed to prepare proposals for a successful OpenID interface. We had to test the design on one user at least. In my case I used the Skype screen-sharing feature to watch and listen how my girlfriend is using various OpenID log in designs, such as Facebook, Twitter (at RWW to comment an article).

I immediately noticed a problem that different services puts different contexts on log in feature. In other words, users might think that by logging in by, for instance, Twitter account, it not only allows to post a comment in RWW, but also affects her Twitter accout (will a note appear in my Twitter? will I be required to follow someone?).

So I tried to develop common interface for all services (Facebook, Google, Twitter etc.), meaning that there won’t be differently designed pop-up windows, only similar username/password/url text boxes. However, I guess this violates the idea of OpenID, that you are redirected to the authentic website (e.g. Facebook) to confirm your data in order to log into website (such as RWW). Otherwise, I personally would be hesitant  to share my Facebook password with other website I don’t know.

So, my design was more like attempt to highlight a problem of different contexts in OpenID log in design.

Different understandings of OpenID

In the class we tried our designs on each other. I was surprised how diverse understandings (mental models) about OpenID were. And I was more surprised that each person defended their own mental model (belief?) quite convincingly, even if their mental model was incorrect. For instance, some people claimed that OpenID is a big database containing all password, while some people said that in their understanding it is decentralized collection of databases.

Mental models (http://middledigit.net/)

What is a mental model?

Before reading books, doing excercises and having discussions I had very blurred understanding of mental models. I knew that this is something that happens in people’s heads, but that’s all. How can that be used in design, and why? Does it change by the time? Do everyone have their own mental model and does it differ a lot? There were many questions I had no clue about (actually I didn’t have questions before that ).

From a book I understood that main concepts of mental models are information processing and external cognition.

Information processing

The mind is thought as information processor. Information comes into mind, goes through various processing stages (comparing, matching) and goes out in form of behaviour (including, no reaction at information). There is much interest in calculating how long does it take to perform a certain task.

Of course, there is limited amount of information that is possible to process. That creates bottlenecks in procession information.

Information overload is a common concept nowadays, so there is a need for structuring information, so I guess librarians and information designers (in physical world) together with information architects (in digital world) are doing a great job in making a complex clear.

As I am personally interested in information architecture and am following community for a longer time, I have noticed that there are some difficulties in defining this practice. However, I am glad that effort in explaining IA is being made and on right side there is a pretty neat explanation if IA. I guess something the same could be with information design practice.

External cognition

This concept refers to thought that people interact with or create information through using a variety of external representations including books, maps, diagrams, notes, images.

This is for reducing cognitive load:

1. memory load,
2. computing,
3. and to reflect changes (crossing out what’s done, manipulating models).

No more than 7 elements in User Interface?

Have you heard of  7 +/- 2 rule? It argues that average person can hold from 5 up to 9 unrelated objects in his/her working memory at one time. That comes from George Miller’s paper The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two.

This rule is sometimes applied to design including user interface design (UID). Even some recognized books devoted to UID refer to that rule. Read (old) post by Edward Tufte. There are lot of suggestions on the internet around rule of 7.

So, now we know that people can store  about 7 objects in their working memories, should we use only 7 elements in design?  7 options on menu? Well, as it appears, not really.

Well, when operating in UI, user doesn’t use only memory as the only one cognitive function. We can’t forget also about recognition. And there are a lot more cognitive functions that would help user to operate. For instance there are some techniques that helps people to memorize more by using their imagination. For instance I have personally found a very useful technique of memorizing things by relating them to constant pictures in my mind.

Well, in short words, usually there are more complicated things going out in user interfaces than some general rules (which might, and also might not be true in our specific cases). And as there is something about not having too many elements in user interface, it is always better to be critical and have real tests on users to tell whether our claims are true or not. Of course, there is always a problem of having a good testing in fast paced development environments where pressure from clients is an everyday event. Some people are talking about integrating user centred practices in such agile environments, but this is a story for other time.

Thank’s for our HCI course teacher Jared, for bringing attention upon that. I was one the people who sometimes blindly believed in such sticky-attractive-number-rule.

The Three Circles of IA 3.0 from semanticstudios.com

There is a lot of effort being made in community of IA practicioners, academists and enthusiasts on explaining the role and field of Information Architecture . Is the IA part of Enterprise Architecture or User Experience design? Or is IAstill defined under Information Systems architecture, as it was 20 – 30 years ago? Like related to Business Processes and Data modelling or maybe Information Systems planning?

Well, I am sure that definition (form) will follow deliverables (content) of IA practice. The more practical/useful/recognized deliverables by IA practicioners will be created, the closer the definition will come. What you see, is what you get, right?

However, it is great that some initiatives are emerging that gathers Information Architects together in explaining and discussing IA field. One of the initiatives, made by Peter Morville and IA Insitute,  is The Explain IA contest where people like you can submit their creative work (photos, illustrations, definitions, diagrams, videos …) that contributes in explaining IA role. As a little teaser, best works win really useful prizes.

Interested in IA? Contribute as well. I have contributed too, check it out.

I would like to share are a source on Information Design that is inspiring me for while. This is the field where art and science meets. And this is the source of playing with information from different perspectives.