Points: 20 pts
Rules: Individual Effort!!

The assignment:

Many of you will be entering this class thinking "Gee, User Interfaces --- this is a strange and bizarre topic!". In fact, you have all been utilizing "user interfaces" your whole life! Every time you interact with a designed object --- anything from a a VCR to a car door handle --- you are implicitly relying on it's "user interface", namely, the way in which the objects form suggests its function. For instance, handles (hopefully) suggest pulling, pushing, or twisting; protuberances suggest grabbing, etc. If an artifact is designed well, you never even think about the user interface; if it is designed poorly, you might not think (at least in the past; this class will hopefully change this!) about the interface either, but rather just perceive a sense of surprise or irritation that it "doesn't work the way it should".

One of the first goals in this class is to learn to think carefully about design, i.e., how to exactly characterize why some design is bad or good. We have to do a lot better than just "I don't like it" or "it's confusing"; we need a framework for locating the nature of the breakdown more concisely. Don Norman and his "Visibility, Affordances, and Mappings" framework provides us the tool that we're looking for. Specifically, we can use these concepts as a framework for analysing what is good or bad about just about any artifact "interface", regardless of whether it's in the computer domain or not. We will call this "a VAM analysis" for the artifact/interface.

This assignment asks you to develop your critical interface assessment capabilities by "noticing" some good and bad interfaces that you encounter in your life, describing their success/failure carefully...and then using the Visibility, Affordances, Mappings (VAM) concepts to analyze exactly where the goodness/badness comes from. These "interfaces" can be of any sort: tools, utensils, cars controls, electronic devices, whatever. I especially want you to think BEYOND just computer interfaces for the moment -- you can include one computer interface if you like, but no more; focus your attention on ordinary artifacts.

Example: One of my favorite examples is something I see with amusing regularity on buildings everywhere: entrance doors that have a sleek vertical "grab bar" on each of the double doors; the same grab bar appears on both inside and outside of door? Probably something some architect thought was cool and symmetrical --- but not exactly usable design! Coming from inside, an unexperienced visitor will (due to the natural affordances) think bars are for grabbing --- and thus try to pull open the door, to no avail. Arrgh! Bad interface: it's form suggests a function that it does not have: the perfect handfull of a grab bar says "pull me" when in fact the door needs to be pushed to open from the inside.

Specifically, your job is to do use the VAM approach to analyze two artifacts.

• The Bad: Bad interfaces are generally easier to notice: just think of artifacts that are continually confusing or frustrating to you. Give a careful VAM analysis for one artifact interfacethat you feel are very poorly-designed. This isn't particularly hard, but requires a presence of mind that you may not be used to cultivating --- you have to pay attention to your own interactions with the world. I guarantee that if you stay observant, you'll run into lots of "interfaces" to everyday artifacts that cause you at least a minor hassle; that's a great place to start thinking.
• The Good: Give a careful VAM analysis for one artifact interface that you feel are particularly well-designed, i.e., you have marveled at how perfectly they match your usage expectations, allowing you (or anyone) to use them with zero training or instruction, and minimal hassle. This can be surprisingly tough, because interfaces that are particularly good are actually harder to notice than bad ones...you just use the device naturally, everything works super, and nothing catches your eye. But just stay aware: what are the artifacts/devices that... at first glance ... you'd think might be confusing/difficult to use correctly...but then somehow just seem to work right for you?

Start your report with a short intro paragraph where you intro your paper and the VAM model for the reader. Then go on to analyze each artifact. A picture of each specific artifact you're talking about is required; it's hard imagine being able to understand your analysis without seeing the artifact you're talking about. Here are a couple of examples of VAM analyses to get you thinking on the right track.

Some more details:

1. You MUST pick specific artifacts to profile in your examples. Just saying "VCRs have bad interfaces" is vague...and probably incorrect, as some have better interfaces than others. So give me a specific artifact...incorporate careful pictures of the artifact and key elements, give me the make and model number, and otherwise make it clear what you are discussing.
2. Don't pick lame artifacts. Every year someone picks "a fork". One year someone analyzed a barbell. Sigh! Try to choose an artifact that actually has at least a little complexity associated with it, e.g., some controls and moving parts. Pick something beyond the bronz age..over-simple/lame examples will get a mediocre score at best.
3. No fair using things that have come up as examples in our discussions in class. Find your own good/bad artifacts!
4. Use what you know! Don't just give me "Dude, it's a bad UI, I hate it, it's hard to use". I expect a careful VAM analysis using the principles we discussed in class. See the examples linked above to see what I mean.

Write up your findings in a professionally-formatted report. I expect you will not need more than 2-3 pages of text, including small pics for each artifact.

Obviously, there are no absolute right or wrong answers. Assignments will be scored on insightfulness of artifacts chosen (choose non-lame artifacts!) and the quality of analysis.