The roles of conceptual device models and user goals in avoiding device initialization errors

 Preprint: Conceptual device models and user goals in avoiding device initialization errorsBy popular demand, here is a link to the pre-print of an article based on my MSc thesis, which I mentioned in my earlier post about slip errors.

Just click on the PDF image to the left to view.

Please feel free to send me any comments or questions, and please share any related work!

Oops, I did it again!

Why we keep making ‘slip errors’, even though we know what to do

As a good ergonomic citizen, I use an external monitor on my desk at work to reduce neck and back strain while I’m working.  The set-up for this is simple:

1. Plug in external monitor cable
2. Open the Display Properties dialog
3. Extend my desktop to the external monitor

Sounds straight forward, right?  Well, despite successfully completing this process hundreds if not thousands of times in my life, I regularly forget to plug the damn monitor cable into my laptop before trying to complete steps 2 and 3.  I’m talking at least once every two weeks, sometimes more.  And no, I do not have below-average intelligence, but thanks for asking!

As it turns out, we all make similar mistakes even while completing procedures that we know inside-and-out.  If you think I’m kidding, ask yourself if you’ve ever:

• Started typing in a web form only to realise that you forgot to position the cursor in the text entry box first
• Started typing in a different window on your computer, only to realise that you forgot to put focus on the window first
• Forgotten to attach an important document to an email before hitting the ‘send’ button
• Accidentally left the original in the photocopier after collecting the copies. 

Aha!  I bet I got you on at least one.  These common mistakes are called ‘slip errors’, and they happen when you accidentally leave out a step in a task that you know well. 

Slip errors are particularly common at the very beginning and the very end of tasks, especially when the error-prone step is more about setting-up for the main activity (as in the case of positioning the cursor before typing) or cleaning-up after the main activity (as in the case of retrieving the original from the photocopier).

So what’s the deal?

In my Master’s thesis I conducted research on these annoying little errors (which may be why I find it a little funny every time I make one).  What researchers think is happening when we leave out a step like in the examples above, is that the device you’re using or operating has been designed so that a required step at the beginning or the end is functionally isolated from the main goal of the task.  For example, when a web form is loaded in your browser, your main goal is to supply the information necessary to complete the form, not to click on the first form field.  Or when you operate a photocopier, your main goal is to make the copies, not so much to deal with the originals.  As such, your brain assigns less importance or salience to these functionally isolated steps, making you more likely to overlook them – especially if you’re tired, distracted, or especially focused on the outcome of the main task itself.

It also turns out that in some cases these errors are so pervasive that they are virtually impossible to eliminate without modifying the underlying device design, even with training.  The best defence against them is to ensure that device design matches user goals – if tasks and devices can be designed so that all required steps that the user has to complete are related to achieving their goals, then slip errors can be greatly reduced or even eliminated.

More fun with messages: Here be dragons!

Earlier we looked at some examples of terribly ineffective Windows Mobile error messages; and now for something completely different.

Firefox uses a somewhat unconventional approach to ‘warning’ users when they’re about to do something potentially dangerous – take a look at these playful and humorous warning messages, displayed when you try to access the about:config settings:

(Ofcourse, there is no warranty to void on your freely downloaded software)

(And let’s hope there are no dragons! Image courtesy of @wandster)

I must admit that I prefer the ‘Dragons’ version (it seems to grab your attention more), but the nature of both messages do make you, as the user, really think about whether you have the skills and knowledge to proceed. A concise explanation about what can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing is also provided in the text below the heading, and the ‘I’ll be careful, I promise!’ button further drives the overall message home (that should you proceed, you’ll be doing something potentially risky).

While the colloquial language might put off some strict usability folks, and the Plain English campaign would most certainly not approve (the headings are not direct, unambiguous, or dare I say boring enough), I think they’re actually quite appropriate for the audience and the situation. If the goal is to make users think twice before messing with the inner workings of the system, then mission accomplished! And these warnings are probably much more effective than a classic, straightforward, boring old warning message - by injecting a little personality into the messages, users are much more likely to read and absorb them, and therefore make an informed decision.

Could these also be simple examples of persuasive design? They kind of represent ‘soft’ constraints – the user is not actually forbidden from proceeding, but the language and tone of voice has deliberately been designed to ensure that users evaluate their level of knowledge and skill before doing so.

What do you think?

Sebastian Deterding on Persuasive Web Design

Wow, check out this brilliant presentation by Sebastian Deterding on persuasive design (ie, how we can design to encourage users to adopt specific behaviours of the designer's or their own intent).  This work is absolutely incredible, and has left me inspired and so excited to be involved in design.

In the presentation, Sebastian touches on (among many other cool and interesting things):

• how persuasive design relates to usability, by considering the motivation of a user to do something versus the perceived effort to do it
• conversion rates, or web 1.0 economics, versus more modern and 'web 2.0' economic goals
• the multi-disciplinary nature of persuasive design
• persuasive design strategies (including constraints; defaults; visualising and measuring behaviours; using personal, graspable, emotional, and comparable design concepts)

Persuasive Web Design - How to Separate Users from Their Bad Behaviours View more presentations from Sebastian Deterding.

Also, note the section on using defaults (starting around slide 77).  Sebastian discusses how people tend to take the path of least resistance and therefore don't change default values, and he references a study on US driver's license applications. The study revealed an 80% increase in organ donors after the default value for "Would you like to donate your organs after death?" was changed from "No" to "Yes" - this is related to my earlier post about the importance of setting sensible defaults.

This presentation also reminded me of several of Ferg Bisset's posts on awareness and motivational design.

Exciting stuff!

Usability job titles: What is it you do again?

Russell Wilson recently posted results from a survey of UX/UI professionals, which asked them to rank their preferred job titles. The results showed that ‘User Experience’ was the most preferred prefix, and ‘Designer’ was the most preferred suffix.  Russell also pointed out the ambiguity of the term ‘User Experience’, and questioned its longevity as a title term since it is so often misunderstood both within and outside the UX/UI profession.

I think it is interesting to look at what we as professionals think we should be called, but I think it would be even more interesting (and useful) to understand what titles those outside our field expect us to have. Who do they look to contact when they are seeking out our services? What job titles do they search for, and what titles most effectively communicate what we do?

After all, as people who specialize in making sure that products and services are consumable and meet the needs of those who use them, shouldn’t we also make sure that what we ourselves offer is easy to understand and consume?  I personally think what we call ourselves is an important part of this, and probably deserves some research in its own right.