Design, Principles, Processes and Politics

"The Golden Rules of User Interface Design," by Theo Mandel (1997)

In his wonderful essay, "Politics and the English Language" (1946), George Orwell began with several examples of contemporary English usage he considered unfortunate, discussed why usage mattered, and concluded with some rules-of-thumb:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never us a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Although the (in)famous "Bad Writing Contest," sponsored by the journal Philosophy and Literature, and the NCTE's Quarterly Review of Doublespeak are perhaps the most obvious heirs to Orwell's essay, the process we follow in created educational technology follows the structure and spirit of Orwell's almost completely. That is, we often begin by looking at unfortunate examples, talk about why they're unfortunate and why the mistakes we think their creators have made matter, and finally we lay out some design principles. If we're honest, we include a more wide-ranging version of Orwell's caveat, and agree to break the rules if users or tasks clearly require it.

So what, then, is the point of articulating design principles as Mandel does? First, they give us a vocabulary for talking and thinking about design. Second, the principles call our attention to issues that we might have overlooked or thought too trivial to give sufficient attention. Third, the principles can be used as working hypotheses about effective design and, if we build with the principles in mind, we can use their articulation to help test the efficacy of the program. Finally, as we design with these principles in mind we can see where they are insufficiently precise or possibly tautological -- this kind of recognition can often signal the really challenging problems in interface/software design.

One interesting way to approach any design principle is to ask five questions about it:

• What is an example in which it is used to good effect?
• What is an example in which it is ignored to the detriment of the usability of the program?
• Is there an example in which it is used to no particular effect?
• Is there are example in which it is violated to good effect?
• Is it sufficiently precise to allow one to implement it in the design of an interface or program?

As an exercise we can try these questions on a few of Mandel's principles.

"From concept to software: Developing a framework for understanding the process of software design," by Mishra, Zhao and Tan (1999)

Unlike the Mandel piece, the paper by Mishra et al is about the process (rather than the principles) of design. If the Principles approach is meant to call our attention to elements of the interface/program we might not have considered carefully, the Process approach is meant to make us self-conscious as designers. There is a recognition in the Process approach that most interesting design problems and features are difficult to analyze in a way that leads to principles that can be followed in a timeless, context-free way. The Process approach recognizes the role of subjectivity in ways that the Principles approach cannot, but at the same time it is perceived by some designers as less useful precisely because it may fail to offer testable hypotheses in the way the Principles approach does.

A worthwhile question for next time (i.e. after the Break) is whether and to what extent you find the Process approach more/less useful than the Principles approach in thinking about your own project/design work.

March 19, 2003

We'll spend the rest of the classtime today talking about current events. The goal of the discussion is not to establish a consensus about the impending war, or even about the current state of U.S. democracy; rather, I hope that we can exchange views in a way that leaves us all the wiser (or at least more clear about what puzzles us).

For next time: Try to make progress on your programs during the Break (as best you can), and read the articles by Ching, Kafai and Marshall, and Allison Druin for Monday.