::scr Drooling GUI

[Arvid Gidhagen]

> How about treating it like a computer, not like some fucked up attempt at
> being something else.

I was thinking something along the same lines earlier this morning
when I read something from Celia about the user's mental model not
matching the designer's mental model.

If we take it as a fact (like Alan Cooper does, at least when he's
talking about the way the file system and documents should behave
from the users point of view) that the system designers should try
to construct the system so that it as closely as possible matches
the user's mental model, I think we'll end up in a lot of trouble
pretty soon. There is little difference between the statements
"the designer should try to match the user's mental model of the
system" and "user interfaces should be intuitively obvious".

With a bit of luck, it might work well for a while. But sooner or
later, something will probably go wrong. If the actual way the
computer works is too far removed from the "mental model" that is
presented, a lot of transformation and translation will have to
be done on the data, and eventually something will happen because
this translation or transformation isn't 100% accurate, and the
user will become mighty upset.

For instance, it might be nice for the user if there appears to
be no difference in getting a document from a web server somwhere,
from another computer on the LAN or from the hard drive. But with
regards to security and reliability, perhaps it isn't so great
after all. Web servers can go down, for instance.

I don't think the idea of metaphors in user interfaces is
completely stupid, though. The danger lies in making them to
literal, which will cause users to expect that the computer
actually works just like the source for the metaphor.

Perhaps analogies would be better - "A is (somewhat) like B"
instead of "A is B".

Still thinking about security (as the thread began with), I
envisioned a system loosely based on the analogy of document
security in a home. In my quick-and-dirty vision, it had three
levels:

1. UNSAFE: Some documents are available for all to see, like the
   ones on a web server (or shared with everyone). This is like
   placing a stack of papers in the street outside your house,
   or perhaps sticking them on the wall of the house.

2. FOR TRUSTED PEOPLE: Some documents are shared but only on the
   local network, or on an FTP server (that doesn't allow
   anonymous logins). This is like giving your friends and family
   a key to your house and telling them to come in and borrow a
   book or movie any time they feel like it.

3. SAFE: Some documents are only available to yourself, preferrably
   encrypted and as well hidden as possible. This is like your
   secret diary that you keep in a locked safe in the back of
   your closet. Only you have the key.

There aren't any perfect metaphors for this, and certainly I don't
think it would be a good idea to actually draw representations of
a house with different areas on the screen.

But the analogy could work as a teaching tool, and it could be
made easy for users to distinguish between placing a document in
either of these three zones - but again, not necessarily via a
visual metaphor.

By the way, I prefer to be called "cognitive science student", if
anyone cares. I might end up working with interaction design or
usability or information architecture when I'm finished, but I'll
always be cogsci.

- Arvid