Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
This article brought to you by LWN subscribers Subscribers to LWN.net made this article — and everything that surrounds it — possible. If you appreciate our content, please buy a subscription and make the next set of articles possible. |
When thinking about user interface design, many will focus on the application itself, but Claire Rowland, an interaction designer and researcher, looks at things a bit differently. She came to the Desktop Summit in Berlin to describe "service design", which encompasses more than just the interface for a particular application. Looking at the service that is being provided, and focusing on the "touchpoints" for that service, makes for a more holistic view of interface design. That will become increasingly important as we move into a world where more and more "ordinary" devices become connected to the internet.
Rowland set the tone for her talk by playing a short video from the Smarcos project, which outlined the kinds of devices and connectivity between them that we are likely to see over the next few years. Things in the real world that have not been connected to the internet, like toilets, pets, or bathroom scales, are headed in that direction. Since February 2011, AT&T has had more new machine subscribers (i.e. devices of various sorts) than human subscribers, and it is estimated that there will be 50 billion connected devices by 2020.
The video described the challenge of making the systems—services—surrounding these devices usable. It also pointed out the problems with ensuring that users are in control of the data that gets shared, as well as the challenges in making the service understandable. Some of the presumably fictional examples shown were a washing machine flashing an "Error: update firmware" message and a coffee machine that wouldn't perform its usual task because of a "caffeine allowance exceeded" condition.
The difficulty in designing these systems is to make them usable and
understandable, Rowland said, because many people "don't want to
fiddle around with tech
". The number of things that need to
"connect up
" are only increasing. Smartphones are outselling
PCs these days, TVs are connecting to the web, and more environmental
sensors are coming online, which presents an "interconnectivity
challenge
", she said. "How do we get these things to play
nicely together?
"
Part of the answer may lie in "service design", which is what she works
on. A service simply delivers "something for users
". That
could be a service in the traditional computer sense of the term, or
something more real world. She used the "Post" (i.e. Postal Service in the
US) as an example of the latter. There are multiple "touchpoints" for the
service, whether it is buying stamps or sending and receiving packages.
The value of the service is in "how the whole thing works
together
", she said. For digital services, it doesn't matter how
well an application ("app") works in isolation, it needs to fit and work with the
service as a whole.
New design metaphor needed
There is a need for a new design metaphor, Rowland said, because the old
usability model of "one person sitting in front of one app
" is
no longer valid. That model relies on there being one core device, the
screen, that creates a "work-centric" design. Those kinds of applications
are context-independent and passive, waiting for a single user to perform
some task.
In contrast, future applications will have "interusability
", she said.
There will be multiple devices involved, some without a screen, and the
applications will become context aware. The applications will be
"content and activity-centric
", cloud-based, and will target
multiple users (e.g. web TV).
The key to designing these services will be in finding the right
touchpoints and the appropriate interaction type. Touchpoints need to be
right for the device being used, that is "doing the right thing on
the right device
". The "right thing" is not necessarily based on
what the device can do, she said. While a TV can have a keyboard, that may
not be the right way to interact with it, because watching TV is generally
a more passive activity. Depending on the type of application, and the
device in use, it may make sense to design applications to be
"glanceable
", and not require users to put their full
attention on the application.
Today's smartphone landscape takes an approach that Rowland called the
"bucket of apps
". Instead of just offering a huge range of
different apps, the phone's capabilities should be used to
anticipate the user's needs. If the user is fumbling with their phone at a
bus stop, there is no technical reason that the bus stop couldn't identify
itself to the phone. That would allow the phone to present the bus
schedule app as a likely choice, rather than require the user to dig
it out of the bucket.
There are three elements that make a "service feel like a
service
", Rowland said.
The first is to present a "clear mental model
" of what the
service is and what it can do for the user. For example, she said that
Dropbox is not technically better than other alternatives, but it positions
itself as simply being about sharing folders. Other similar services talk
about "syncing and backup
", which is "scary for
some
".
Continuity is another important element, so that users get the same
experience on different devices. For example, an app could tag the Twitter
tweets that you have seen on a particular device, so that they don't have
to be downloaded on a different device. There is an effort to create
"migratory interfaces
", she said, where the user can move from
device to device while keeping the same state and context in the service.
If a user is on a mobile device looking at banking information, and the
device runs low on power, the device could prompt whether to push the
information to a nearby desktop. There should also be continuity
"across interaction modes
", so that a transaction started
elsewhere could be completed via a phone call, for example.
The final piece of the service puzzle is consistency, Rowland said. No matter what kind of device or application used to interact with the service, it should be consistent. If an appliance is to be controlled from a mobile phone, that doesn't mean that there will be the exact same dials and other control elements in the phone app, but that the labels, names, and interaction logic should be the same, she said. The kind of controls used should be appropriate to the device, but still be consistent with other ways of interacting with the service.
Clouds
The cloud user experience is a challenge for consumers, she said. Connectivity is going to fail sometimes, and to a non-technical user, the difference between losing the connection and a bug in the app is small. Losing connectivity can also lead to bad user experience when it is regained. She pointed to the Spotify music service, where users have to log in again once the connection has been restored. There may be valid security reasons for doing so, she said, but it leads to a bad user experience.
Instead of treating connection loss as an exceptional event, applications should plan for periods of disconnection. Downloading content well ahead of the time it is needed would be one example of that. The cloud also brings with it a set of privacy issues and settings that are difficult for users to get their heads around. There is a need for reasonable defaults, she said, pointing to the recent issues with Fitbit activity information showing up in Google searches. Users were probably not expecting that their sexual activity (including date and time, as well as duration) would show up there.
The desktop certainly has a role to play and will be a part of this
ecosystem, Rowland said. Service design is partly about the user
interfaces on devices, but it is also about how to make all the different
parts work well together. Apple has staked out a claim to provide this
kind of experience, but she does not want commit to only Apple products.
There "need to be alternatives
" to Apple, she said, and that's
where the free software world can come in.
In response to a question from the audience, Rowland had some suggestions
on getting designers more involved with free software. "Designers
love a challenge
", she said, and free software needs to "get
better at packaging itself to attract designers
". She suggested
going to design conferences to present free software design problems as
challenges and asking for designers to step up to help solve them.
While Rowland's talk was not immediately applicable to free desktops, there was much in it to ponder on. Like it or not, the vision of the interconnected future is coming, and our mundane devices and appliances are going that route as well. Making those things work well for users, while still allowing user freedom, is important, and it's something the free software community should be contemplating.
[ I would like to thank the GNOME Foundation and KDE e.V. for travel assistance to attend the Desktop Summit. ]
Index entries for this article | |
---|---|
Conference | Desktop Summit/2011 |
(Log in to post comments)
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 18, 2011 12:16 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 18, 2011 12:20 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
From the beginning of this article I was expecting the usual buzzword-laden wild hyperbolic claims, but then I was pleasantly surprised to find something so sensible and meaningful.
In particular, the 'continuity' and 'connectivity' aspects are problems which are immediately relevant to the things we have now and use every day - and they're both areas in which software is universally bad, but could be substantially improved with a relatively low investment of effort if people cared enough to prioritise them. Especially connectivity seems to be getting even worse - more and more software nowadays expects that it will have a permanent, 100% reliable internet connection and gets unhappy when that isn't the case.
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 18, 2011 21:53 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Completely agreed. A couple of things that jumped out, though:For example, an app could tag the Twitter tweets that you have seen on a particular device, so that they don't have to be downloaded on a different device.We had this 25 years ago, with messages longer than 140 characters and with so very much less buzzwordiness, and we called it '.newsrc'. Everything old is new again...
Things in the real world that have not been connected to the internet, like toilets, pets, or bathroom scales, are headed in that direction.Perhaps I'm just a Luddite throwback, but these seem like perfect examples of the sorts of things one would never ever want to be Internet-connected. (But perhaps I am just a throwback: I don't use the 'cloud' at all.)
Continuity is another important element, so that users get the same experience on different devices.This is... not something the free software community is good at, at least not if different pieces of software are involved.
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 23, 2011 9:17 UTC (Tue) by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164) [Link]
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 29, 2011 16:06 UTC (Mon) by dneary (subscriber, #55185) [Link]
>> like toilets, pets, or bathroom scales, are headed in that direction.
> Perhaps I'm just a Luddite throwback, but these seem like perfect examples
> of the sorts of things one would never ever want to be Internet-connected.
<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Withings-WBS01-Bathroom-Scale-Bla...">Wifi connected bathroom scales</a> that allow you to track weight over time are all the rage. I can see an embedded "pet passport" tracking vaccinations and owner tag information being really useful. As to toilets: I have seen water monitoring systems that measure water usage for the household to prevent leaks that can reduce water usage by up to 30%. Doesn't' sound that unreasonable...
Dave.
Amen to the quality
Posted Aug 18, 2011 16:13 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
Amen to the quality
Posted Aug 19, 2011 12:27 UTC (Fri) by ebirdie (guest, #512) [Link]
Just couple my [nit]picks from the text, although:
"Like it or not, the vision of the interconnected future is coming"
This is either false or just plain old worn phrase to use in this context. The interconnection is already here. For years many, those with necessary skills, have setup various more or less personal web-services for one's data to not be bound to an application and location.
For majority it is just the matter, who and how are able to shape the interconnectivity. Whether a user's interconnection scene is tightly coupled to a bounded sticky brand (Apple, Windows [Phone|Desktop], Google, Facebook...) or are we free to interconnect between the behemonths as well as minor solutions of our own or others like Freedombox.
"There is an effort to create "migratory interfaces", she said, where the user can move from device to device while keeping the same state and context in the service."
IMHO it would have been appropriate to give some acknowledgement to Sync technology in Firefox and service at Mozilla.org as an example of free software trying to accomplish this "can move from device to device" with a state.
My summary goes something like: The free software is already here to make and enforce technological standards like http and html, but the challenge still is that services have been made and will be made bounded and sticky even with free software. It is just general business logics, what are still bound to Microsoft's way of doing business. One just wonders, how the same effect can be made to services as happened in web-browers?
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 18, 2011 17:06 UTC (Thu) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
Looking at software from the pure point of "an app" was always a reductive point of view. One could say (also in a simplistic way) that is what separates a simple "programmer" from a "software engineer".
To me, what makes this not so easily attainable in real life are practical problems, like development time (time to market, size of the team), know-how (many "programmers", just a few really good Programmers) and security & privacy problems (many things look simple until one checks the security and privacy implications).
It's very hard to have a team that tackles all this aspects (and more not mentioned) in an efficient way (if at all). Added to that, there is the problem of having management that really understands the situation.
I'm not even explicitly considering the "cost" factor into this, although all aspects referenced imply some relation between success and cost.
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 19, 2011 0:11 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
Since February 2011, AT&T has had more new machine subscribers (i.e. devices of various sorts) than human subscribers
I don't get what these two classes of AT&T subscribers are. Can someone give examples?
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 19, 2011 0:58 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
Desktop Summit: Claire Rowland on service design
Posted Aug 20, 2011 1:43 UTC (Sat) by dmag (guest, #17775) [Link]
Machines are non-phones that use wireless data protocols. Think of the Kindle, cars that get traffic reports on their GPS, or companies that need to track the GPS location of their vehicle fleet.
I have no doubt we'll see Internet-connected toilets. You may laugh, I'm not ashamed to admit that I laughed about "playing games on your phone" 20 years ago. Heck, I never thought I'd buy a phone with a color screen -- what's the point of seeing your contact list in color?
AT&T human vs device subscribers
Posted Aug 20, 2011 1:59 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]
Thanks. The thing is: AT&T is much more than a cell phone network; I needed some context.
I laughed about "playing games on your phone" 20 years ago. Heck, I never thought I'd buy a phone with a color screen
You're really only making a statement about poor terminology. I don't think you are playing games on your phone or have a color screen on your phone. You do those things on your pocket computer, as well as (maybe) make voice calls.
The only thing that could have been a surprise for anyone was that voice calls would be the killer ap for pocket computer (remember they flopped when they were called PDAs and didn't do telephone). Or maybe that one's laptop computer would some day fit in one's pocket.