It’s ironic (and predicable) that the interfaces SUPPLE comes up with for dexterity/visually impaired people are just better interfaces than the controls. The optimized interfaces almost always display more information in a way that requires less clicking than the original interfaces. No wonder they perform better! It’s just a direct application of Fitts’s law and GOMs analysis.
One interesting thing to call out: The interfaces for SUPPLE are defined by schematic intent, not by layout. The computer translates a user-flow markup into an actual interface. We’ll probably see a lot more of this as we need to design web sites for truly divergent screen-sizes (computer, mobile, wall screens).
...software designers should know that we form habits, whether we want to or not.
Habit formation is actually good thing: it saves us the trouble of having to think when confronted with interface banalities and it lessens the probability that our train of thought will get derailed. In the case of the “Are you sure you want to quit?” dialog, our hands have memorized close-and-click as a single continuous gesture. That’s good, because most of the time we don’t want to think about the question—we just do the right thing. Unfortunately, our habits sometimes make us do the wrong thing: we don’t even have time to realize our mistake until after we’ve made it.
So, as designers we are led to a general interface principle: If an interface is to be humane, it must respect habituation.
Jakob Nielson brings up one of my pet peeves with using scroll wheels on forms in his latest Alertbox (although I just tried this with Opera, Safari and IE7 and didn't reproduce this- did we solve this problem already?):
Sites offer drop-downs for state abbreviations under the theory that doing so prevents input errors. But that's not true: menus are more error prone than typing because the mouse scroll wheel often makes users inadvertently change the state field's content after they've moved their gaze elsewhere on the screen. In contrast, everybody knows how to type their own state's two letters, and it's always faster to enter this information through the keyboard than the mouse.
I hate it when your browser's focus is still on the select box, but your focus is on the page and you start scrolling the wheel to move down the page and you change your selection instead.
I don't know if I've set up my browser to not do that, or if the current generation of browsers all solved this problem- but I still feel the caution when I'm using a select box- I consciously click back onto the page to focus it instead of the select box before moving on.
Unfortunately, the overuse of icons in liueu of text doesn't make a program easier to learn while making it language agnostic. Instead, it makes the program equally undecipherable in all languages.
The amount of pain and effort should match the user's perceived payoff.
In other words, the user has to think it's worth it. Yes, another "duh" thing... but if it is that "duh", then why oh why haven't some of the biggest producers on the planet taken it to heart? How come I still can't tune my Denon receiver? Or adjust my home thermostat properly? How come I find myself in hotel bathrooms staring at the shower faucet, wondering how annoyed the front desk will be when I ask them to help me take a bath. How come I can't turn off automatic Capitalization in Word? (trust me, it's not as simple as it seems...)
...It’s also speaks to the limited vision of the cell phone industry. Exactly why have we never had random-access voicemail on cell phones? We’re talking about hand-held devices with more computer power than the Apollo spacecraft that took us to the moon. We’re talking about devices with screens of more than sufficient resolution. Could nobody think of displaying the messages? -The iPhone User Experience: A First Look
In your "Ask Don" feature, you ended your thoughts on convergence with: "Today simplicity, tomorrow convenience. Tomorrow convenience, the next day simplicity." Do you feel there is hope that technology will close this gap? In other words, it would be nice if our cell phone would physically "change" into a MP3 player at our whims, but until reality catches up with Sci-Fi, is there a middle ground that technology can reach that will make make simple and convenient devices? (like a touchscreen interface that offers the tactile feedback of physical buttons)
DN: We are always caught in the bind of wanting our devices to be straightforward and simple, while simultaneously wanting them to do more and more things.
This is not a technological problem.
Technology can help only if it can adopt a simple structure so that controls for different devices are as similar to one another as possible, making the learning much easier. Multiple purpose controls are an abomination. It is possible to have a single device transform itself into independent devices for controlling different tasks. But here the key is to make the switch from the support of individual technologies and individual devices to the support of cohesive, organized activities.
When I watch television, I don't really want to watch TV: I want to watch a movie, or a TV show. Therefore, the "watching a TV show" control should automatically set up the TV, the cable box or DVR, the audio set, and let me control volume and selection of shows -- activities that require numerous separate devices, but should e smoothly controlled by one. Indeed, the "watching a TV show" controller might also control room lights and draperies. That's what happens in my home.
But, that's it. The "watching a TV show" controller should not select music channels, or control the bedroom lights, or the room temperature -- it should be configured for all and only the components that make up the TV viewing experience.
Similar strategies are required for all of our activities. Activity-centered design is the key to simplicity.
I can think of no better examples of why usability and user experience are important or why you shouldn't just look at the features of a gadget, but how they work together and help you accomplish your goals... here's two quotes:
I was reminded yesterday why I can never fully love Windows Mobile. My plane lands. I turn the phone back on in my Treo 750v. I notice it does not set the current time. I double check that I have the option for it to set the time with regards to the current network. I press the reset button. No luck. I have to go in and manually set the time. When I do this, it warns me that my appointments will change to match the new time zone. Fine, that's what I want them to do. But guess what? the appointment times DON'T change. So now all my CES mtg times are all screwed up and I have to go in and fix them by hand. Can you say ARGH!? -The Gadgeteer
My 750v is really getting on my nerves. If you remember (and read yesterday's report...), I've been having a few issues with it this trip. Well this morning the alarm I had set to wake me at 7am didn't go off. :o[ I thought Microsoft fixed the problem with alarms not firing. If I can't count on a smartphone to help me keep the appointments that I set, then I really don't want to be using that particular smartphone. -The Gadgeteer
As a long time reader (and one time writer!) I know that the author has been using Treos for awhile...so I think the emphasis should be on Windows Mobile (bugs) instead of the Treo. I'm not surprised, it's one of the reasons I wanted either a Palm OS or RIM when choosing my phone.
If the door says PULL and I push instead, is it my fault? Certainly the door was clearly labeled. But if the door were designed to look more pushable than pullable, I wouldn't have made the mistake. It's a lot easier to redesign the door than to redesign me. -David Feldman, InterfaceThis
Dave is referring to the classic "push/pull door" usability problem discussed in Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things." Of course, you might also think instead of Larson's "The Far Side" comic in the same vein.
If only mobile phones offered inexpensive way to communicate asynchronously. 
WIDGETIZE