AI may be hitting all the headlines – but we shouldn’t forget UI (user interface).
It is just as important, whether you are a coder, a client specifying what you want from a system, or a user of a software product. The keyword here is ‘intuitive’. The best-designed software doesn’t need much in the way of manuals, help systems or training – the user of the system can do what they want to do by acting in a way that feels natural.
This is a far wider issue than for software alone, and it’s useful to think of a couple of everyday design failures that make interactions with basic technology a pain. Let’s start by thinking about the cooker hob. Typically, this has four rings (hotplates), organised in a two-by-two rectangular shape.
Nine times out of ten, the four control knobs for these rings will be arranged in a straight line – because designers like nice clean lines, and it’s easier to fit them in. There is no way from looking at those knobs to know which ring they control, so the designer has to put an image alongside each one to make it clear. The user needs instructions to work a hob.
However, just occasionally, a designer will put the knobs in the same two-by-two pattern as the rings. Suddenly, it’s instantly obvious which control to use. No instructions are needed: it’s totally intuitive.
The other example is even more common, and is a triumph of UI failure. It applies to one of the simplest pieces of technology we use: the door. Specifically, doors in commercial buildings, whether they be shops, cafés or offices.
Very often, such doors have a pull handle on both sides. This appears to be because designers are fond of symmetry. With a pull handle on both sides, the look of the door is elegantly symmetrical. But most doors only open one way. Time after time, a door user will come up to the side of the door that needs a push, pull the handle, fail to get in and have to try again. I once spent a couple of hours watching such a door in a new build office: every user got it wrong.
But there is a trivial solution to this problem. Put a pull handle on the side to be pulled and a push plate on the side to be pushed. Now everyone gets it right. It’s a tiny change to the user interface, but one that corrects misuse and irritation. It’s a real solution, rather than adding instructions – all too often there are signs on doors with symmetrical pull handles saying ‘Push’ on the push side, yet still people often pull the handle.
The same principles should apply to good software UI design.
If it feels natural to do something a particular way, it should work. A good example where this is well implemented is when using a web browser with multiple tabs open. If you want to separate a web page into a separate window, the intuitive thing to do is to drag the tab for that page onto the desktop – and with many browsers this works.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of other examples in software where coders have got it wrong. Sometimes it’s about how information is presented on the screen. Apple’s recent introduction of a ‘liquid glass’ user interface, for example, can make it difficult to see how to start an action (though at least it’s possible to reduce the effect). Other interface concerns include consistency and diversity.
We want a piece of software to behave consistently throughout. An example where this falls down in many apps is inconsistency when saving information. I use a booking system which sometimes saves changes you make automatically and at other times requires you to click a Save button. This leaves the user uncertain about the status of a change they have made.
Diversity here refers to providing different ways to make something happen. What’s intuitive to one person will not be obvious to another, so a well-designed interface offers different ways to make the same thing happen. An example of this being done well is copy and paste. Most software gives you three ways to achieve this: keyboard shortcuts, right clicking to get a drop down or using Edit menu options. But there are plenty of cases where the coders only take the approach that seems natural to them.
These are just a few examples of making UIs better. A piece of software is usually much more complex than a door – but by making intuitive actions central to the design process, coders and clients can ensure that products are fit for purpose.