Vincent Gable’s Blog

February 9, 2009

Now Recognizing President Barrack Abeam

Filed under: Design,Programming,Usability | , , , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2009

President “Barack Obama” is not recognized by my Mac’s spellchecker. Firefox, Microsoft Word1, Mac OS X — each of them has a built in spellchecker, and none of them know how to say our president’s name. Spell checker dictionaries need to be updated more frequently — to keep up with the emails we write.

Things have improved since 1995, but there’s still a long way to go.

There’s more to say about how to fix things, but someone has already said it. The future looks bright,

(Microsoft) now scans through trillions of words, including anonymized text from Hotmail messages, in the hunt for dictionary candidates. On top of this, they monitor words that people manually instruct Word to recognize. “It’s becoming rarer and rarer that anything that comes to us ad hoc isn’t already on our list” from Hotmail or user data, Calcagno says. According to a July 14, 2006, bug report, for example, the Natural Language Group harvested the following words that had appeared more than 10 times in Hotmail user dictionaries: Netflix, Radiohead, Lipitor, glucosamine, waitressing, taekwondo, and all-nighter.

I think the next step in spellchecking is to follow Mac OS X’s lead, and adopt a system-wide spellchecker. When there’s only one instance of a spellchecker running (not a separate one for every program that might work with text) we can make it much smarter, without requiring a supercomputer.


1


Microsoft added Barack and Obama to Office’s dictionary back in April 2007, but unfortunately, that change hasn’t yet made it to the Mac Ghetto, ahem, “Mac BU”. Or at least I haven’t seen it in Word yet.

More Terms = More Specific (Assume AND, not OR)

Filed under: Design,Programming,Quotes,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 9, 2009

Assumed-And is the way Google does it, with the more search terms added, the narrower the results. The other way around can be argued in the abstract, but your customers are not living in the abstract. The world has voted, and Assumed-And is the way it is. Having additional terms widen, rather than narrow, the scope confuses people in the extreme. They will leave you and find a site with a search function that “works.” This blunder alone could put a company out of business.

Bruce Tognazzini

February 5, 2009

If You Don’t Know How to Help, You Can Still Do Good by Getting Out of the Way

Filed under: Design,Quotes,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 5, 2009

Learning happens when attention is focused. …
If you don’t have a good theory of learning, then you can still get it to happen by helping the person focus. One of the ways you can help a person focus is by removing interference.

–Alan Kay, Doing With Images Makes Symbols.

I Solemnly Swear to Make Mistakes

Filed under: Accessibility,Design,Programming,Usability | ,
― Vincent Gable on February 5, 2009

President Barack Obama, and two other presidents, have retaken their oaths of office, because of some mistake with their inauguration. That means a little over one in fifteen presidential oaths were botched. If that sounds high, it is. But only because people make mistakes.

That’s why, we must make our software so that people can recover after making a mistake.

Pens Suck

Filed under: Accessibility,Design,Usability | , , , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 5, 2009

In 1987, Alan kay said,

By the way, Sketchpad was the first system where it was discovered that the light pen was a very bad input device. The blood runs out of your hand in about 20 seconds, and leaves it numb. And in spite of that it’s been re-invented at least 90 times in the last 25 years.

Almost 50 years after Sketchpad, you can find a light pen at any computer store today. Today, these light pens are used to supplement more circulation-friendly input devices. Maybe that’s enough to solve the problems Sketchpad had.

Personally, I think the metaphor of a the pen is too blindingly strong. People love their pens, because they grew up with them. I don’t accept that they are the pinnacle of input. We can do better then copying a pointy stick filled with dye.

But I have my own biases and unique experiences. I am dysgraphic — I have trouble writing legibly by hand, and spelling. To me a pen is not something that feels good or puts me in the zone. It’s something that gets in the way of expressing my ideas. But fundamentally, isn’t every input device a barrier between your mind and the medium?

Better Designed Credit Card Readers

Filed under: Design,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on February 5, 2009

There’s a great comment thread on designing credit-card readers to be more obvious, over at uiandus.com.

And this one, from Chris Clark, sounded the most cost-effective and simple to me,

An idea: put the scanning mechanism into the main body of the machine (in this case, the left) and give the inactive side of the swiping channel a very low profile.

20090205-brup972kd9i3m7w4ykms5erwt4.preview.jpg.png

The channel should be deep enough that your card doesn’t spill out during a swipe, but shallow enough that you can see that the magnetic strip won’t be touching anything if you slide your card with the strip facing ‘out.’

If people work with the assumption that the magnetic strip must touch something to work, this design removes the perceived affordance of the ‘wrong’ side.

You could get the same effect by using clear plastic on just the “short” side. But I prefer Chris’ concept, because clear plastic will get dirty, scratched, and opaque, but empty space will stay empty.

There are lots of great comments, and I don’t know enough about building these things to know which plan would give the most bang for the buck in reality. So if this problem interests you read the blog and pick a winner for yourself.

(UPDATED 2009-02-12: I wanted to clarify why I’m ignoring the most obvious and right answer, of having a sensor in each side of the machine, so there wouldn’t be a wrong way to swipe the card. My understanding is that doing that would be too costly. If that isn’t the case, then I’m deeply disappointed in every credit-card reader I’ve used, and the cheap bastards who opted to save a few bucks to inconvenience all their customers.)

January 30, 2009

Color is Cultural

Filed under: Design,Usability | ,
― Vincent Gable on January 30, 2009

An Asian student in my laboratory was working on an application to visualize changes in computer software. She chose to represent deleted entities with the color green and new entities with red. I suggested to her that red is normally used for a warning, while green symbolizes renewal, so perhaps the reverse coding would be more appropriate. She protested, explaining that green symbolizes death in China, while red symbolizes luck and good fortune. The use of color codes to indicate meaning is highly culture-specific.

Information Visualization, Second Edition: Perception for Design, page 16 (via Keith Lang)

I hypothesize that color-codings derived from nature and physics (for example more and less mapping to hotter and colder colors) would work across cultural divides. But maybe that’s just the science-worshiping American in me talking.

UPDATED 2009-02-02: There’s some very good commentary on this post. My hypothesis was wrong, or at very least missed the real difficulty of color coding. Also, it now appears the anecdote was not real culture shock, but a smart student defending their design with the first thing they could think of when it was suddenly challenged.

January 23, 2009

Never Submit

Filed under: Bug Bite,Design,Programming,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on January 23, 2009

Submit is always the wrong title for a button. Yet it’s still commonly used, even by people who should know better. I had “Submit Comment” buttons on my blog when I first published this.

Buttons should say what happens when they are pushed, in the vocabulary of the person pressing them. Technically a button might submit a form to a server, but what matters is the consequence of submitting the form.

For example,

Picture 27.png

this button should be called “Search” or “Find” or “See Matches” — something that describes what happens when it is pressed, or what the operator will see after pressing it.

That’s a Bad Word

“Submit” has negative connotations, and should be avoided. The first three example usages (in Mac OS X’s Dictionary.app) are all negative,

submit

verb
1 [ intrans. ] accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person : the original settlers were forced to submit to Bulgarian rule.

• ( submit oneself) consent to undergo a certain treatment : he submitted himself to a body search.

• [ trans. ] subject to a particular process, treatment, or condition : samples submitted to low pressure.

Say an apartment takes applications on their website. It would be pedantically correct to say “Submit Application”. But it is more respectful to say “Send Application”, or “Apply”. Pressing a “Submit” button implicitly says “I submit”. And that’s the wrong relationship for a user to have to an interface.

Blame The Programmers (Not Really)

One reason so many buttons are labeled “Submit” is that the HTML code for making a button has the word “submit” in it. The code for is <input type="submit" value="This Button">.

If the keyword send was used to build buttons, I would argue that the web would be a slightly less intimidating place today. A button that demands you “send” something is better then a button that forces you to “submit”.

Choose Your Words Carefully…

So perhaps, when choosing programming terms, we should pick the ones with the fewest negative connotations, since inevitably some of those words will bleed over into user-land. Even if programmer words stay in programmer-land, word-choice influences the way we think about things. Best not to encourage berating your users and customers.

Of course, you shouldn’t go overboard avoiding “ungood” words! There is no question that the most clear term should be used (even if it’s offensive). A better programming-vocabulary means better, less buggy, programs. And that’s better for users (no matter what they are called behind their back). But if possible, avoid disparaging words.

And never submit to the temptation of calling a button “Submit”. There’s always a more accurate, respectful name.

New Police Computer System Impeding Arrests

Filed under: Security,Usability | , ,
― Vincent Gable on January 23, 2009

In Queensland, Australia, policemen are arresting fewer people because their new data-entry system is too annoying:

He said police were growing reluctant to make arrests following the latest phased roll-out of QPRIME, or Queensland Police Records Information Management Exchange.
“They are reluctant to make arrests and they’re showing a lot more discretion in the arrests they make because QPRIME is so convoluted to navigate,” Mr Leavers said. He said minor street offences, some traffic offences and minor property matters were going unchallenged, but not serious offences.

However, Mr Leavers said there had been occasions where offenders were released rather than kept in custody because of the length of time it now took to prepare court summaries.

“There was an occasion where two people were arrested on multiple charges. It took six detectives more than six hours to enter the details into QPRIME,” he said. “It would have taken even longer to do the summary to go to court the next morning, so basically the suspects were released on bail, rather than kept in custody.”

He said jobs could now take up to seven hours to process because of the amount of data entry involved.

(Via Schneier on Security.)

January 18, 2009

Touching The Information

Alan Kay talking about GRaIL, Graphical Input Language, a system implemented in the late ’60s that was so far ahead of it’s time, it’s still pretty impressive today.

“I felt like I was sticking my hands right through the display and actually touching the information structures directly.”

I had no idea this sort of interface was done so early.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress