"Natural User Interfaces Are Not Natural"
In a nutshell, a true 'natural' interface is one that includes lots of forms of interaction :) Enjoy!
As the exponential growth in the world of technology leaves people in awe as if they’ve just seen a spectacular magic trick; Don Norman’s skeptically optimistic writings are more relevant than ever. The article under review, “Natural User Interfaces Are Not Natural” is no exception. Norman writes in an informed yet surprisingly unbiased style, allowing the reader to thoughtfully form their opinion on the information presented, achieved by developing a pattern of positives and negatives throughout his writing. This article, published in Interactions Magazine, was written to evaluate and expose some of the flawed beliefs surrounding ‘natural user interface’ espousing claims of rewritten rulebooks and guidelines (Norman, 2010). Through one simple statement, “As usual, marketing rhetoric is ahead of reality” Norman sets the tone for the discussion to come (Norman, 2010).
After establishing his position on the subject, Norman lays out a number of arguments against the ‘natural’ of user interface, coloring his discussion with examples and suggestions.
First on Normans agenda is to dash any beliefs that gestural interface is a new idea. To this end, Norman discusses the invention of the Theremin (among other things), a gesture controlled electronic music synthesizer patented in 1928.
From here, Norman addresses some general downfalls. He purposes that gestures are “neither natural nor easy to learn or remember’ (Norman, 2010). The point is made that gestural interface lacks critical clues deemed essential for successful human- computer interaction (Norman, 2010). If a move is misread, there is little information available to help understand where the user went wrong. Norman optimistically acknowledges that problems such as this can be overcome; but suggests that they are achieved by adding more conventional visual interface elements such as menus etc…(Norman, 2010)
Keeping with the optimism, Norman begins to discuss the power of gestural interface, asserting his confidence that it will find an appropriate place in the “repertoire of interaction systems” as the interface itself is now becoming more and more practical to deploy inexpensively on a large scale (Norman, 2010). He also believes gestures will eventually become standardized, pointing to several already well-established functions such as shaking, swiping and pinching- noting his observations of peoples attempts to use these functions on systems without gestural capabilities.
Calling back the balance, Norman switches to play devil’s advocate- arguing his next point, that natural gestures are not always beneficial. To illustrate this point, Norman gives the example of Wii bowling. In many instances, the motion of throwing a bowling ball was so natural that players were letting go of the controller instead of hitting the ‘let go’ button, causing damage to the screen they were playing on. In response Norman says, “Proper behavior comes about through careful design, not through instruction manuals and warnings” (Norman, 2010), an indication perhaps of his favor for visual aid.
Some developers who favor full gesture systems argued that problems such as those mentioned can be avoided all together. However Norman challenges by noting the subtleties of human actions, claiming even the most complex systems could not be controlled solely by body gestures, but rather calls for an aid to add specificity and precision in commands (Norman, 2010). Again, Norman refers to accessing the user path (Norman, 2010).
Norman concludes by reasserting the value of gestures as an addition to the repertoire of interaction techniques. He expands by noting the potential for enhancing interactions, “especially where traditional methods are inappropriate or inconvenient” (Norman, 2010). Echoing the mood of his opening statement, he notes however that gestural interface is not an ultimate solution, that new problems and challenges need be addressed, and that none of these systems is inherently more natural than the others (Norman, 2010).
The most important critique to be made is the timeliness of this article. As was pointed out, and from my own experience, no matter what new technology, there seems to be a general attitude of wonder and excitement. However, just because something seems impressive, doesn’t mean that it is. Consequently, if it proves problematic, it won’t do much to further the development of interactive multimedia. Norman is writing to this audience. At times it feels almost like a plea for understanding, but at the same time it is an acknowledgement of possibilities.
Norman stresses more than once about gesture interface being part of a repertoire and the need for some form of user path. The relevance here is to note that one type of system cannot accomplish everything. Incorporation is the key. While nothing is totally ‘natural’, we can get closest to achieving this by using a variety of tools. This suggests a more multimodal approach. It is believed that multimodal interfaces provide the user with “greater transparency, better control, and a generally improved usability experience.” (Oviatt & Cohen, 2000).
Norman alluded to this in the closing when he said that gestures will enhance interaction when traditional methods are inappropriate or inconvenient. Authors Oviatt & Cohen discuss this type of interface saying; “A multimodal interface permits users to switch between modalities as needed during the continually changing conditions of mobile use.” (Oviatt & Cohen, 2000).
All interface systems clearly have their strengths. In order to make real developments in interactive multimedia, individual systems should be tested, and strengths combined. Don Norman did a brilliant job addressing this issue while remaining hopeful.
References:
Norman, D. (2010). Natural user interfaces are not natural. Interaction, 17(3), 6.
Oviatt, S. & Cohen, P. (2000). Perceptual user interfaces: multimodal interfaces that process what comes naturally. Association For Computing Machinery. 43(3), 45.
No comments:
Post a Comment