While the set of ten include some good common sense ones, I particularly liked tip #2 and #3 for their expert knowledge:

Tip 2: Test in a crowded public place. Once you have a handful of screen concepts, you need to get them in front of people. By testing “in the field” you’ll find issues with noise, light and social situations that you wouldn’t otherwise uncover, which can have a big impact on the final design. We’ve had the most success testing in places with good foot traffic such as food courts, malls, cinemas and busy pedestrian streets. Before you begin you may need to ring the venue to find out what their requirements are and to get the proper clearance. For example, Westfield required that we set up a table rather than wander around their mall.

Tip 3: Use chocolate as a lure. We’ve found that a simple, universally loved treat is a good way to encourage people to help out. We generally use large blocks of chocolate, but must admit that testing during Wellington’s first snowfall in 30 years made us think that a hot chocolate voucher would have been smarter.

For the rest of the tips check out the email article. (Note: as far as I know, the monthly newsletters — which usually contain gems like this — are never published on blogs. Sign up on their site.)

[Edit: article is now available on the Optimal Usability blog]

—-
Featured image NC-BY-CC by djlein

Boarding passes. The stress of getting them in time, or remembering to print them out before you get to the airport, and not losing them. Can QR codes replace them?

Recently I went to Midwest UX in Columbus, Ohio and flew Delta for the trip. Checking in the night before, I was presented with a screen asking if I want my boarding pass:

• Printed
• Emailed to me
• Sent to my phone
• Saved to be printed at the airport

Curious, I chose to have the boarding pass sent to my phone. What I received was a text message to the Safari page below. Immediately I was intrigued. A QR code for my boarding pass? I had never seen any additional infrastructure at the terminals to account for this? But if it saves a few sheets of papers I’ll give it a go.

The Excitement

Going through security I held up my phone to a scanner a proceeded to the metal detectors. The same, at the gate, I loaded the web page and scanned my phone as I walked down the jetway. Smooth as could be, I was pleasantly surprised as the efficiency of the process. Neither security nor the gate attendants questioned my boarding pass, it was as if they expected it. This isn’t without complications though.

Where it Failed

Despite the streamlined workflow and the pleasure of not needing to us the walk-up-and-go terminals there are still a few places my digital boarding pass fell short.

Gate Number

Scroll to the bottom of the boarding pass, the gate number states Check Monitor. This makes sense a night before my flight, but again, when I checked the page at the airport it said the same. Digital boarding passes should provide accurate and current information. Tie the boarding pass to the main system and update me, in real time, of gate information and delays if appropriate. Don’t make me use one piece of technology to hunt around for another.

iPhone Lock

I have a password lock on my phone. Add this to the iPhone screen turning off (and locking) after a minute and timing is everything. I’m in line for security – wanting to make sure I have the boarding pass up when I get to the front of the line, but I don’t know when that will be. The same when boarding the flight. I don’t want to be that guy delaying boarding and I also dont want to keep toying with my phone just to keep the screen active. There needs to be a balance.

Overall this was a new and good experience as a part of my airline travelling experience. I challenge to look at the implications of technology though. If I am saving paper, alleviating lines at check in, can I get a fast track lane as a reward for my planning? Where can we leverage analog methods within a digital realm to streamline the experience further?

Earlier this year we discussed Volkswagen’s superbowl ad and some of our observations around emotions and design. Now, the innovative automobile company does it again, this time with a mobile application. (Note, you cannot access the application through iTunes in all regions).

The application is quite simple in design – offering a brief description of a vehicle and details around some of Volkswagen’s innovative technology. As their video describes though, it is difficult to simply describe the function so the remainder of the application allow customers to test drive the functionality. By selecting a function, one may place their phone over the printed ad and steer their avatar – in this case a Volkswagen vehicle. Depending on the feature selected – lane assist, adaptive lights, and adaptive cruise control, the car reacts differently when the mobile device is placed over the street in the printed ad. Watch the lights follow the curve of the road, the vehicle vibrate when touching the edge of the lane, and more.

While augmented reality isn’t new to the cell phone, with applications allowing you to type while still seeing what is in front of you, superimpose social network information over people’s heads, and more, this is one of my first experiences with it as a strictly marketing technique. In reality though – this goes beyond marketing. The Volkswagen ad is a simple prototype. As interaction designers we spend a lot of time talking about sketching, prototypes, and development. Often that is defined as a tangible representation of a model. In this case though, holding a phone is nothing like driving a car. Still, this simple prototype, or tool, demonstrates a complex interaction, can inspire conversation, and excite people to invest in the product, and ultimately purchase a vehicle. Aren’t these the same goals we aspire to when developing websites and software? What tools can be used to create prototypes outside of the screen to communicate what a technology might be like, without building the entire system, or by building a different one entirely?

_{Images from VW Innovations}

Have you ever needed a user manual to sit on a good chair? Probably not. When we see a good chair, we almost always know exactly what to do, how to use it and what not to do with it. And yet, chairs are made by the thousands, and several challenge these base assumptions to become classics in their own right. The chair is one of the most universally recognized archetypes known to us. In light of recent events in the mobile realm, I believe that the stage is set to probe notions of archetypes in the mobile space.

Archetypes

Archetype: An archetype (pronounced /ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all. (wikipedia)

[Note: There is a deep philosophical definition of archetype as proposed by Carl Jung. This article is not based on that form of definition.]

The word archetype has its roots in architectural theory. It also deals with cognition at its most basic level. In a very generic way—points, lines and planes are archetypes in graphic design. Columns, walls, floors, roofs are archetypes in architecture.

When we see a flight of stairs, our cultural memory and experiences kick in. They teach us that stairs signify climbing, doors represents portals between zones and chairs are (usually) something you sit on. We seldom think much about them. Experience makes us learn, encode and remember these archetypes, making us react spontaneously to them. The degree to which archetypes are understood varies greatly between cultures. Interestingly, archetypes can always be deconstructed, challenged or probed since they merely act as starting points of reference. There are innumerable examples of archetypes that have been reintroduced to us in the most puzzling ways in order to question our own understanding of them; for example Escher’s illustration below, which turns the stair archetype on its head.

… archetypes can always be deconstructed, challenged or probed since they merely act as starting points of reference.

Escher deconstructs the chair archetype

Archetypes vs Metaphors

With all the press that metaphor gets in UX, it’s worth pointing our how it is different from the archetype. Metaphors are analogies between two objects or ideas, conveyed by the use of one word instead of another. In interaction models, metaphors are different from archetypes in the sense that they are the conceptual transference of an idea/archetype into another more tangible form that becomes more easily understood. The archetype is the original idea/model in itself.  An obvious example of metaphors in industrial design are when chairs are inspired by nature.

Tulip Chair inspired by an obvious metaphor

Further Reading on Archetypes

For more information on archetypes, the book Form, Space and Order by Francis D. Ching is a good introduction to archetypes in architecture (for lateral understanding). My graduate research thesis in architecture also dealt with archetypes, and it is this understanding that motivated me to seek and understand archetypes in interaction design.

Mobile UX Archetypes

Our ever-increasing mobile interaction with our World implies that we are creating, consuming and sharing content constantly on the go. We already have about 1 billion net-enabled cellular devices, according to the Hammersmith Group report on the Internet of Things. We’re checking mail, updating statuses, sharing personal data and browsing constantly using little computers in our pockets. Over time, one could expect a certain familiarity to set in with the different mannerisms and modes with which we find ourselves interacting. Can we look at a user interface and guess what it’s going to do for us? If the answer is a tentative yes, it probably means its interaction model is based on a common archetype.

Can we look at a user interface and guess what it’s going to do for us? If the answer is a tentative yes, it probably means its interaction model is based on a common archetype.

A few months ago, my experience of mobile archetypes at a macro-level appeared predictable. The iPhone and its subsequent ‘cousins’ seemed to be what you’d expect from a mobile operating system. Without any qualitative leanings to its effectiveness, the recent release of Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 series and Kin phones inspired me to examine the differences in mobile archetypes that I’d encountered.

In the absence of academic definitions, one could define Mobile User Experience (MUX) Archetypes to be ‘prototypes’ that are or might rapidly become models for future everyday mobile interaction behavior. They are overarching experience patterns that we, the Mobile Generation, will have poked, prodded and swiped countless times during our lives. Over time, these interactions would most likely have formed cognitive roadmaps in our cultural memory, paving the way for more thought-free acts while using technology. We would expect interactions to occur in certain ways, and would be surprised and often annoyed when they would not meet our expectations.  When someone reinvents an archetype (like Facebook did to email), it makes us pause, think and readjust our behavior.

My criteria for selecting these archetypes were:

1. These are archetypes on the foundations of which a part or whole mobile user experience can be conceived.
2. Most exist out there on mobile devices, while others seem destined to enter this space soon.
3. They are mostly screen-based interactions (for now).

The groups and examples chosen are sub-sets as well as super sets. For example, Facebook is by itself a super-set of many smaller metaphors and archetypes. These would be subsets of the Facebook family, but might have UX archetypes of their own.

Archetypes as subsets and supersets

The MUX Archetypes I propose are:

1. Application Centric
2. Activity Centric
3. Timeline Centric
4. Context (Location) Centric
5. Process/Task Centric
6. Emotion Centric
7. People/Identity Centric

1. Application Centric

In such a MUX archetype, the applications make the interaction experience. The OS of the software are predominantly engines that can run and manage applications or ‘apps’. These ‘apps’ become the tools with which the device is made useful to us. App-centric OS’s like the Apple iPhone/iPad platform result in the interaction being likened more to a Swiss-army knife. The ‘start experience’ or the archetype that one is greeted with most while using these app-centric platforms are usually some form of smorgasbord of the apps that are on the device.

iPhone

G1 Android Phone

Samsung bada

(Examples: Google Android, Samsung bada, Microsoft Surface)

2. Activity Centric

In activity-centric MUX archetypes the focus shifts to the activities that one intends to perform with the interaction. The activities make the interaction experience. These are usually represented visually and placed in an easily accessible sequence. The most obvious example in recent times has been the Windows Phone 7 series, which advocated a direct ‘content-first’ approach. It mapped the most important activities of the user on its ‘start experience’, with a secondary emphasis on ‘apps’.

Windows Phone 7

(Examples: Windows Phone 7, Zune, the original iPod, Sony PS3)

3. Timeline Centric

Timeline centric MUX archetypes focus on time as a material. In these archetypes, the user is invariably manipulating, tweaking, dragging and experiencing data with time as a prime focus. The latest example is the release of the Microsoft KIN phones where the stripped user interface focuses on timeline centric features like the Loop and the Spot.

MIcrosoft KIN

The Whale Hunt by Jonathan Harris

Nike+ stats

(Examples: Microsoft KIN, ‘The Whale Hunt’ by Jonathan Harris, Nike+ stats, Mint, EDI monitors, MIDI-channel mixers etc.)

4. Context (Location) Centric

Contextual/location centric MUX archetypes ride the wave of GPS and its interweaving with social networking. In these archetypes, the user is invariably ‘checking in’ (or actually checking out) places based on GPS mapping and other ways of stitching locational data together. A great example of this is the Photosynth, which takes a user’s photos, mashes them together and recreates a 3D scene out of them that anyone can view and move around in. Applications like Layar use information about your location to augment the real world as seen through your mobile phone.

Gowalla

Photosynth

Layar

align=”alignleft”
(Examples: Foursquare, Gowalla, Photosynth, Layar etc.)

5. Process/Task Centric

These MUX archetypes enable a user to achieve certain tasks by describing the process in a sequential way. These archetypes invariably carry a ‘trail of breadcrumbs,’ enabling the user to journey back and forth through the process while following instructions. These archetypes would usually resort to a tying element of some sort during a process of educating the user. This thread would lead the user by the hand (or eye!) through the process.

20 minute meals

Popular Science+ iPad app

(Example: Jamie Oliver’s ’20 minute meal’ app, Tutorial section of the Popular Science+ iPad app etc.)

5. Emotion Centric

Jonathan Harris’ We Feel Fine project epitomize an emotion-centric interaction archetype. Even though this model has not (to my knowledge) been implemented on a mobile platform yet, it seems loaded with potential. Jonathan Harris describes the interface to the data collected on ‘We Feel Fine’ as “a self-organizing particle system, where each particle represents a single feeling posted by a single individual.”

We Feel Fine

(Example: ‘We Feel Fine’ by Jonathan Harris etc.)

6. People/Identity Centric

This MUX-archetype is most familiar with users of any social networking platform. Your identity and the identities of the various contacts in social networks to which you belong to are the prime focus for such an archetype. They are almost invariably centered around ‘status updates’ of some kind, leading to a stream of news about different identities.

Vodafone 360

Twitter API (as used in TweetDeck)

(Examples: Vodafone 360, Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin etc.)

Why do these archetypes matter?

It is not as important to debate the accuracy in grouping these archetypes as it is to imagine the possibilities of interchanging an expected archetype with another. Thinking in archetypes gives us a unique overview of interaction models and their intrinsic behavior patterns, making it possible to ask interesting what if questions and examine consequences. Archetypes and the overview they provide also help us critique experiential bottlenecks when they occur in designed interactions. Thinking laterally, if the form of a chair did not entice a user to sit on it, then perhaps the form or the formal archetype needed rethinking.

Thinking in archetypes gives us a unique overview of interaction models and their intrinsic behavior patterns, making it possible to ask interesting what if questions and examine consequences.

Our interaction experience of a product or service can vary drastically with the chosen archetype. For example, Twitter status updates are predominantly people/identity centric. What would happen if this archetype were to be inverted to say an ‘emotion-centric’ Linked-In? It might yield a very different experience of how our professional networks are feeling over time.

These are early days in the field of interaction design (especially in the mobile realm). Several MUX models are hugely successful, while most fail to remain relevant. The discussion regarding mobile interaction archetypes must be an ongoing, iterative process with a hope that experience models will mature and stabilize with time and refinement.

I believe that, in the near future, complexity, diversity and an almost ubiquitous presence of mobile interactions are certain. With mature, universal archetypes our designed interactions cold become more intuitive, leaving user manuals obsolete and making experiences more joyful for everyone.

——-

Images:

Escher print: Meridian ; Tulip chair: Design Heaven;  IPhone: GeekWhat; Android:  Blogoscoped; Samsung Bada: Gadgetvenue; Windows 7: All Touch Tablet; The Whale Hunt: Jonathan Harris via Andy Polaine; Nike: Electronica; Photosynth: Architecture Blog; Layar: Layar; Jamie Oliver iPhone App: CBS Interactive; Popular Science: 144Apps; We Feel Fine: We Feel Fine via Change the Thought; Vodafone 360: Geeky Gadgets; Twitter: The D’Alesio Blog

With a mobile phone, you can watch movies/videos/TV programs online anywhere at almost any time. That ubiquity has brought tremendous convenience to our lives, but on the other hand, the value of them has been diminishing. We don’t very much/at all care about where we can get a clip or if we miss a drama episode. What if, however, we have a movie that can be watched only when certain conditions are met?

This concept is partly like a concept I’ve already introduced in my blog, but a little different.
OK, so you hold this device in front of you and watch a clip, but the clip can be played only if you are at a particular place. You have to BE there to see the whole movie.

For example, you can see

1. a movie’s secret story at an actual scene
2. a sequel clip to a TV commercial with how to apply for an exclusive present announced at the end
3. your favorite actress choose clothes at a boutique
4. a comedian introduce which spots you should visit in a touristy place

etc. etc.

Or you can shoot a video of yourself for your boyfriend saying “Hey, how long do you think I’ve been waiting for you? I’m going home.” so that he can see it when he finally arrives.

By limiting the geographical conditions for viewing movies this way, you might expect audiences to visit places you like.

It would be so much fun if videos can be seen in 3D from any angle (no, not from below).

How would you like to tap your wrist to engage the clock embedded in the OLED wall? Rub your fingers together to request a text message with your bank account’s balance? Or rub your ear to have the speaker phone in the center of the table adjust the volume?

The Hasso Plattner Institute out of Potsdam, Germany recently published a paper on Disappearing Mobile Devices. The paper does not attempt to act as a proof of concept but instead outlines the possibilities of interactions with mobile devices as technology becomes smaller and embedded into the very fabric of our lives, whether it be our buildings, our clothing, or ourselves.

A brief history of mobile devices

Focus has changed over the last few decades from the development of Notebook computers to PDAs and mobile smart devices to wearable technology and gestural interfaces. Wearable technology is starting to pick up momentum with niche items like the Bluetooth headset that doubles as a ring (scheduled to be available early in 2010). Likewise, gestural interfaces have received acclaim in the media—thanks to the box office success of movies like Minority Report—and have begun receiving more attention in the IxD field itself as books like Dan Saffer’s Designing Gestural Interfaces have become available.

Opportunities

By focusing on how a user interacts with a device over what the device looks like, Ni and Baudisch outline three main interactions that disappearing mobile devices could make possible. These are:

1. Touch Scanner
2. Motion Scanner
3. Directon Scanner

The image below illustrates some of the key factors that differentiate each scanner type.

Types of Scanners

• On a high level, touch scanners can sense if the device is being touched by an input device or if any input device is out of range. This simplifies to binary input of On/Off. While this is not a practical method of inputting long streams of data such as text, this allows simple switches to be engaged and simple combinations, such as two long taps followed by one short tap, to allow slightly more complex actions.
• Motion sensors are one step more advanced than touch scanners, where a touch and motion sensor work in union. Rather than simply measure On/Off, motion scanners can also detect general direction. Complex interaction such as drafting text it still limited with motion scanners but the technology would allow scrolling through a list or setting a dimmer switch with more ease than a simple touch scanner.
• Still more complex, direction scanners employ three non-linear touch sensors. With this triangle pattern, the technology can sense more complex shapes and gestures. This allows for not only the capabilities of touch and motion scanners but allows with more ease complex data input such as shapes and basic text.

Possible applications include embedding sensors under a person’s skin for text input and signalling different applications within an environment. Studies performed by the authors investigated opportunities of using Graffiti style of input methods with various degrees of success. Implications surrounding the dexterity of individuals, memory of a purely gestural system, and tiny finger constraints are just a few breakdowns of this new technology. Still, the studies performed outline a lot of potential for where embedded sensors and interfaces can move on both a personal and a social level.

Applications

Amy and Dr.Peter Elliot (Dylan Walsh), Congo, 1995

Think back to the 1995 movie Congo and the backpack the gorilla Amy wore to sign to the human cast. Now imagine the same technology with embedded sensors: no more heavy backpack or intrusive technology reminding others of a physical limitation. On a more casual level, imagine your public transit pass being embedded into your fingertip. No more fumbling for a metro card, taking off gloves to get into your pocket; instead, you could simply swipe your finger over the scanner as you hurried to catch your train.

While we won’t see this technology implemented at our local grocery store just yet, it is interesting to see how the simple models outlined by the authors can open the doors to new interactions and technologies in a more natural and social manner than mobile devices presently allow.

–

Image from Disappearing Devices

When I first played Star Fox 64 I was extremely excited to see the polygons move smoothly over the screen. It made me feel as if I were really flying over the combat zone. With the 3D technology (Google Earth, games, etc.) of today things look even more beautiful. Unfortunately we still have to experience this on our 2D screens… I can’t stop imagining what it would look like with future technology. And here is what I hope to see.

3D desktop concept

This 3D hologram concept from the University of Tokyo just makes me want to have a holographic desktop. It made me come up with my desktop concept: Bring the black curtain down so that the hologram can be seen more clearly in front of you. There are tiny projectors installed, giving off 3D hologram in front of the curtain.

A browser window can be resized by actually “pinching” and dragging the tab at bottom right.

It would be fun if a document could be made as if you were using a typewriter. The curled paper hologram comes out of the keyboard.

Touching the 3D objects would be really fun. Dragging, throwing, resizing, etc., but crushing paper to dispose it would be the most interesting.

You have to adjust the “depth” of the cursor on screen, so how about a mouse like this? By pressing the mouse body downwards, the cursor sinks (goes deeper) on screen. When you release it, it goes back to the default position (front).

3D mobile phone

In the future, the display that has been conventionally used for a screen will no longer be needed. And if there is a flexible material that can be used to a mobile phone, we can have a mobile phone with a large hole in the middle like this.

The 3D hologram appears in the hole (2D also). So we can finally have video conference calls Star Wars style.

I just can’t wait to see it!!!

We all know how great a touch screen is… But have you ever thought that it’s a nightmare for the blind? You never know what you’re touching because everything is flat. All the information and status is on the screen, so a user has to take the device up from a pocket, touch the necessary buttons and see with his eyes. In the future information is told in 3D.

So what would this look like? Let’s take a mobile phone as an example: The front face and the sides of it transforms the shapes according to what information or status is expressed. It makes concavity and convexity on the surface. For example, the face can be customized with contoured graphics. It could be dressed up with a kimono-like graphic or it could have a concave clock so that a blind user can know the time.

The status is shown on its sides

A convexity means a “+” notice, for example there is an unread email message or an unanswered phone call. For a negative status, for example, the battery running out soon or having a bad reception, a concavity appears at a certain location. With this function, you can know without even touching or looking at the phone if your current location has a good reception to talk on the phone, if the battery has to be charged and if you have unread emails or unanswered calls. You wouldn’t have to travel around a place to find a good spot to talk on the phone, taking a look at the small icon on the screen many times.

When the phone makes a continuous movement, it means you have an imminent status to take action for. For instance, when its surface is moving like a wave, you’re getting a phone call. Of course the movement can be customized freely…

With its flexible surface, the information on the screen could be dramatically expressed. Even an email message could be on a protruded paper. Your file management could be done in 3D. Open a folder to take out movies and photos in it just like you do in the physical world.

The biggest merit with this feature could be a 3D map. you can get a much greater feeling of locations with “heights” because in most cases, a landmark is something very high, which can be difficult to be expressed in 2D. Can you imagine how easy it would become to search where you are and which way to go with this function?

When you want to make your email message stand out, you can put an embossed present box on the screen. A calculator will be much easier to use if you can feel the keys. An RSS feed could be read on a book-like shaped surface. The curl on the bottom right corner means you have a next page to read, A flipping gesture takes you to the next page. A physical keyboard of course makes your texting faster!

For advanced functions, there are limitless ideas to be realized that could never have been done with a conventional flat screen. For example, you can leave a kiss mark and handwritten message to
send your love to someone. And text information could be rendered in braille for the blind.

Handheld projectors are the next big thing in mobile devices. They make it possible to project a screen on almost any surfuce, anywhere. This technology opens up a whole new world of interactive possibilities. A group of researchers came up with the idea to explore multi user interaction for these handheld projectors.

At CES09 the handheld projectors were received with great enthusiasm. The researchers in the video are exploring the possibilities and complexities that arise when you combine multiple projections in a room and make them responsive to each other. Check it out:

The video shows a lot of explorations, not all of them interesting. But that’s how research goes. I personally think handheld projectors suck when you use them for highly interactive tasks, like swapping and sharing files. But they are interesting for exploring and playing around. The treasure hunt idea could be interesting though.

But just exploring technical possibilities isn’t interesting. It’s also very important to ask questions. Like: how do people feel and act when they suddenly can share their personal data in public? I’m really curious in what way people will use it. I don’t think they will beam their agenda and personal letters. In our minds these things are personal and for us. A mobile phone is small and can be ‘protected’ from the world, that makes it a great device. When people have a beamer we have to look at new possible uses. But these are just my thoughts. It would be great if the researchers would explore this. My hunch is that video projecting and new explorative games (the search light metaphor is great) such as the treasure hunt and augmented reality will make the projectors big.

In 2007 Barbara Ballard launched her book ‘Designing the Mobile User Experience’ in which she tried to explain to us what the design challenge for mobile devices is. It’s a good book to read, but for the lazy designers among us… there is an easier solution. A couple of students decided to translate the first chapters in a storyboard and made an interesting videoclip.

First of all: compliments to the students for making it a very nice video to watch. It explains the challenge quite well. When designing for mobile applications you have to look at the context. This is something a lot of designers seem to forget. In what way will the device be used? Maybe the user doesn’t have time to look at the screen… or maybe he hasn’t got more then one thumb available to control it. And what about surrounding noise and lights? It’s really important to be aware of these factors and there can only be one possible way of finding out: research. Go out and check the places where your device/application will be used. Talk to people and pretend to do the things yourself. That way you will start understanding the context (yes, start… it takes some time).