When I’m designing interfaces, a question that is always in the back of my mind is is this as clear and simple as possible? It often reminds me of the Einstein quote, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.” For the most part, that is what I do for a living - look at everything in the equation and reduce it to its simplest parts. The idea being that the easier and more clear any system is, the more quickly (and the more likely) people will accomplish their task.
But problems can arise when you give people too much confidence in their actions. People can barrel through a process without thinking about what they are doing and suddenly find themselves having done something they didn’t intend to do with no way to go back.
This applies to the world outside of interfaces as well. There have been a few studies (1, 2) arguing that the systems and signposts that govern driving create more dangers than they prevent. The basic idea is that drivers who have become accustom to the rules, begin to follow them so automatically that they stop looking for situations where the unexpected could happen. John Staddon, a professor of psychology and brain sciences at Duke University, calls it inattentional blindness.
So, what is the solution? It’s a difficult balance. When there are no dangers or areas that require attention, you want people to still be able to move quickly. But when a situation occurs where people need to pay attention, a great way to do that is to confuse people. When people are confused, they slow down and pay attention.
Imagine you are driving on a stretch of road with no familiar road attributes (no curbs, lines, signs, etc.) There are people milling around, cars approaching from different directions, bicycles…utter chaos. As a driver, your instinct will be to slow down. You will start to look at the pedestrians and into the eyes of the other drivers trying to determine their intentions. You will be paying full attention. This is the idea of traffic planner Hans Monderman:
Not only was it virtually naked, stripped of all lights, signs and road markings, but there was no division between road and sidewalk. It was, basically, a bare brick square.
But in spite of the apparently anarchical layout, the traffic, a steady stream of trucks, cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians, moved along fluidly and easily, as if directed by an invisible conductor. When Mr. Monderman, a traffic engineer and the intersection’s proud designer, deliberately failed to check for oncoming traffic before crossing the street, the drivers slowed for him. No one honked or shouted rude words out of the window.
“Who has the right of way?” he asked rhetorically. “I don’t care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains.”
New York Times - 2005
Along with the Einstein quote that I keep in my head, I also try to ask myself, is this something that requires users to pause and think? After reading a very insightful article on the minutiae of web form action best practices by Luke Wroblewski - I was amazed to see how the simple style treatment of a primary vs. secondary button could completely affect the user’s successes in selecting the correct button. The idea being that by differentiating styles, users get confused as to why two elements that are the same (buttons) each have a different look. This forces them to slow down and understand the button’s meaning thus avoiding making any mistakes.
