This article is really about two things - expectations and communication - and Derek makes an interesting tangential point about personal quirks without actually addressing either of those issues.<p>Users <i>expect</i> things to be a certain way. In most business situations, that's advantageous - when expectations become standard across your user base it allows you to build upon those expectations.
(Rapidly thought-up example: most users now expect underlined text on a website to be a hyperlink, which allows authors to link to external sources without specifying 'click here' all the time.)<p>But what if you want to be cutting edge, or do something that isn't expected? Then you need to <i>communicate</i> how you have changed expectations. When Derek checked into that hotel, they should have explained how the lights and taps worked (probably had written instructions for both in the room as well, although that's not much use in the dark).<p>Apple have been very successful inventing their own quirks. Some of that success is leveraging our expectations - it's why we call their devices 'intuitive'. Some of it is communication - see how many Apple ads (even still photographs) demonstrate the touch pad being used, to communicate to dedicated mouse-users that their expectations may go astray. And Apple aren't perfect - I had to Google how to turn off my wife's iPod because it wasn't in the instructions and didn't meet my expectations of an off switch.<p>A business coach I worked with once summed up business as: Business = People | People = Expectations | Expectations = Communication, so<p>Business equals Communication.<p>It's a useful framework when building any product for consumption by others.
I think the problem with areas like architecture and industrial design is, there is no clear performance metric for what is considered "good design" - or at the least, what designers consider good isn't completely aligned with what users consider good.<p>The switch designer in this case was overly focused on aesthetics and his own cleverness, rather than on making a "good" switch. The fact that you'd need directions on how to use it makes it a horrible switch. It fails its most primitive task, which is to be identified as a switch. Secondly, you can't tell how it works just by looking at it. And to ignore the iconography of something utilitarian like a switch, is a bit self-indulgent. Here, design gets in the way.<p>This is a problem with design education, which turns people into cake decorators rather than problem solvers. The entire science of how-things-work is ignored and worse still, not even considered as a source of inspiration. Instead, you get perversions similar to that of the post-modern literary crit world. Designers talking amongst designers, giving each other awards, and curating some new form of design-incomprehensible to outsiders.<p>And this leads to the false dichotomy between form and function. Almost like art vs. engineering. You get students who study design, who have no interest in how things work. And you get engineering students who don't understand that products are experienced in layers - you have first impressions and expectations, recognition of what it does/how to use it, perceiving of quality (would an iPod feel cheaper if it was lighter?), durability, etc. and that process must be managed/controled via design.<p>I sometimes think studying bridges is a better way to learn about design than studying architecture. You can't ever ignore the fact it has very real constraints. And yet, there are tons and tons of beautiful bridges. Every component must be functional AND aesthetic. A designer is the engineer and the engineer is the designer. You get a very "fat-free" structure. Different bridges have different experiences. And they never get in the way of you driving across them either.<p>James Dyson gave an awesome talk about this at MIT, called "The Art of Engineering". I definitely recommend watching it if you see engineering and art as one: <a href="http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/362/" rel="nofollow">http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/362/</a>
The folks coming down on Derek might do well to read Donald Norman's book, The Design of Everyday Things, which speaks directly to this issue. It's important to remember that the purpose of design is not simply to dazzle the beholder, or make people think, but to make useful things usable. It's easy for designers to forget this, especially the avant-garde sort who fall in love with their own creative spirit, tend to win the accolades for their "radical" ideas. In fact, Norman's book introduced me to one of my favorite design epithets:<p>"It probably won an award."
Couldn't agree more. I've recently had a similar experience with the windows of the flat I live in. They are big double-glazed windows, very nice, that are made of a single pane of glass with a horizontal axis so you can rotate it to open the window.<p>There is, of course, a latch, to make sure the window doesn't open past a dangerous point (we're on the 7th floor of a 20-floor building). The clever designer who designed these windows managed to hide the latch in such a way that it doesn't look like an ugly safety latch. Result? When cleaning the windows some time ago, one of the windows rotated all the way around and then latched itself. We couldn't figure out what was going on (the latch pin is entirely concealed) and so while trying to close it again, broke the pin, which required us to call in some window fixing people whose only option was to actually saw through the pin to close the window, because the pin was so inaccessible.<p>We also got them to install some simple latches. Those are clearly visible, and involve a little bar of metal with notches that you can hook onto the window to latch it. Clear, obvious, and I can guarantee you that no one will ever break one of <i>those</i> latches while trying to close the window.<p>Kudos to the designer who managed to screw up the usability of a <i>window</i>, though.
People are VERY conservative when it comes to interfaces. Remember those old Westerns, where the guy in the Hotel washes up in a basin? Two pitchers: hot and cold.<p>Along comes running hot and cold running water! Two faucets replace two pitchers. Still washing in the basin - fill it with some hot, some cold.<p>Now somebody clever invents the single faucet- one handle to mix hot and cold! Cool! Quickly get just the temp you want. Fill the basin, wash and shave.<p>But wait - kids are just washing under the flowing water. Those darn kids! But it DOES save water.<p>Everybody is doing that now - so filling the basin becomes an anachronism. In fact the basin is just to catch the water - its a drain. A dirty drain. Who would wash their face with drain water? Ug.<p>So we go from pitchers and basin, to running water with adjustable temp going down a drain. Total elapsed time: 100 years, 3 or 4 generations.<p>Nothing in that process was rocket science. Could have happened the 1st day. Its PEOPLE that are the inertia, darn those people and their expectations.
Not sure I agree with the premise of this article.<p>You can always make the case that, on the contrary, you may want to go to a hotel to experience something that you haven't experienced before.<p>If the design is somehow more functional or otherwise makes the room look very beautiful, I'd be more than happy to stay at a place like this.<p>If necessary, they can always put little notes explaining how some of the main tasks get done.<p>I agree that the fact that people stay in a hotel for only at most a couple of days puts more constraints on how accustomed people can get to another interface. My own programming "quirks" have developed for a reason. So why does the author then use this example to justify his point about teamwork when the metaphor breaks? Or is he implying that you will only work with a team for such short time that no one will reap any benefits from getting used to ideas that make things faster in the long run?
This is probably my least favorite post by Derek, whereas the others I've generally really enjoyed. It started very "get off my lawn-ish".<p>Standards are inherently good when working with others, but style is unavoidable. Ultimately everyone has to adapt and I believe this is one facet where company culture gets defined.
At some point the light switch and the faucet controls will have to go. But we can't get to that stage if people have trouble with a side swipe or other twist and tweak.<p>I agree that it's brain dead to have a major site like Dell always changing their website interface, just to keep things "fresh" or make it seem like some layer in management actually did something every 3 months. The concept of a mouse and menu choices however goes back to the Xerox photocopier developments, and have yet to be shed. For example a better input scheme could be using keyboard input for navigation but only if the prevailing rule is to be smart about it. Consistency is important but secondary!
In newer hotels in Germany, the rooms DO have light switches, but the lights only work while the room key card is inserted in a slot by the door. There certainly is some logic to that, but it badly confused me first time I was confronted with this arrangement.