Window Layout: Cures for Cryptovision (continued)

Figure 1: Cryptovision at work. Here the design hides the task flow. The user must work hard to understand the expected task sequence. The user must infer the task flow based on training or experience.

Figure 2: The task flow is implied by the left-right, top-down sequence of screen objects. Meaning emerges from the sequence with an implied then between each line. For example, "consider this first" THEN "consider this item next" THEN "consider this following item", etc.

CRYPTOVISION SNEAK ATTACK Occasionally a designer will use a left-right, top-down pattern for the task flow, yet fail to tell the user what to do. The design in Figure 3 causes confusion by withholding important instruction from the user. Check it out on Compuserve! Some developers think that instructions will insult users and clutter the screen for the expert users, but casual, infrequent users fail to remember what to do, thus need "just in time training" on the screen. Meanwhile, instructions never slow down experts. Experts easily ignore them, just like we ignore highway signs when driving on a familiar road.

In the Compuserve example, the designer might reply that the Help button is nearby, with ready support. However, why call an ambulance, when only a band-aid is needed? The lesson is that layout can be correct but still lack meaning (the cryptovision thing). Layout can benefit from disciplined use of short, well-place instructions. Call it writing from the soul.

Figure 2: This window allows you to change your Compuserve tool bar icons. Training is NOT an option for Compuserve. Instructions would help. Apparently users can assign any command to any icon. Could you? Although the task follows the left-right, top-down model, we still get cryptovision meaninglessness. (p.s., we never figured out what value you'd get from making the mail Inbox perform the Exit command. But that's a topic for another column.)

Discover the weak points in your design by asking potential users to think out loud as they do a task using paper printouts of your screen designs. This is called a protocol simulation test. If a user gets stuck, ask what they're thinking. Don't get defensive. If they don't know what to do, and user training is not in the cards, then you can only blame the design. Get soul.

THE TASK IS THE THING What regimen can save users from attacks of misunderstanding arising from bad layout? First, we must understand what varieties of "work" designers create for users. Then we can see how to reduce that work. Once again we'll take recourse to our familiar VIMM model (Visual, Intellectual, Memory, and Motor work) to construct soul design solutions.