Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Bad Design

Entry 1771, on 2016-02-12 at 12:26:45 (Rating 2, Computers)

If there's one thing that bugs me it's bad design. Actually, there isn't just one thing that bugs me, and bad design might not even be at the top of the heap if there was, but just for the purposes of this blog post let's just assume that it is my number one source of annoyance.

As anyone who follows this blog has probably realised by now, I work with computers. I am a generalist but I work mainly with Macs, I do some web site and web database creation, some miscellaneous programming, some general consulting, hardware repairs and installation, and anything else required.

I'm not an expert on design and have no qualifications in the subject, but it is an interest I have and I have done some reading in the area. When I create programs, databases, and web sites user interface design is one of my primary concerns. Of course, speed, reliability, and functionality are also important but I give all 4 of those factors equal weight, something which many other people don't seem to do.

At this point I should say what I mean by "design" in this case. I mean not just how the program, web site, or product looks, but how its functionality is structured: whether the interactive elements are consistent and intuitive, whether the response to the user makes sense, and whether the item in question works harmoniously both internally and in the larger environment (for example within the operating system or between itself and related items).

As I said, I work mainly with Macs (and other Apple products) and to a large extent that is because of Apple's design standards, but even Apple is far from perfect. But at least they are ahead of most other companies so I choose them more as the best of a series of bad options rather than a good one in any absolute sense.

To be fair, these things aren't easy, and what makes sense as a design element to a programmer might not make sense to users. And often people aren't even aware that they are the victims of bad design. They just know that they feel lost, or frustrated, or uncomfortable and might not be sure why. There is also the point that in many cases there isn't just one big problem which is obvious.

Instead of one big problem there might be a series of poor features which leads to the "death by a thousand cuts". The user might not notice each one but in the end it is just as fatal! This is how I feel about Windows in particular (and to a somewhat lesser extent, other Microsoft products).

Let me give an example of how user interface design can make life easier in the real world. How many people walk up to a door which they should push and pull instead? I do that, even when there is a sign which says "push" (I'm a real genius). But there are other doors I just walk up to and push without thinking. Why? Because the push doors which work have a push plate instead of a handle. Why have a handle if you can't pull the door?

So let's look at this in the software world. I don't want to pick on Microsoft any more because they are such an easy target, so let me choose one of Apple's more heinous transgressions instead. In iOS Apple have thrown out the traditional graphical buttons and provided coloured (often red) text for active elements instead. That's not too bad because we are used to something similar with active text on web sites (like links). But when titles and other text which doesn't do anything are the same colour and sometimes active text isn't coloured it just turns into a "tap it and see" situation! Why do this when it's so easy to provide a distinctive design element? Maybe visual attractiveness here overcomes the bigger design picture.

But that is a specific example of a problem and because it is so well defined it is quite easy to fix. In fact there is a "button shapes" option in the accessibility section of iOS settings which restores a sort of button-like appearance to active text.

The bigger problem is the software - often expensive corporate systems - which are just horrible to use. It seems that the people who wrote this software either have never used it (so don't realise how bad it is), or don't listen to user feedback, or are forced into designing a specific way due to management restraints, or (most likely) all of the above.

There's no easy fix for this because the problems go beyond mere user interface design and encompass the whole model the systems are built around.

In fact there does seem to be almost an inverse relationship between the size of the team working on a software project and the usability and general quality of the finished product. That's probably a bit too simplistic because many creations of a single individual are actually pretty terrible, and big projects are beyond what a single person can do so a real comparison can't be made. But I do think that having too big a team - and especially too many non-technical people - is the biggest cause of bad products.

Whatever the cause is bad design is rife in modern software. Most software exists to allow people to interact with information. I think that "people" aspect deserves more attention. It's time for human interface design to be given a higher priority.

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.