User Centered

Not content with just a kids menu and a crayon or two, Macaroni Grill lays down paper over the table which I'll go ahead and chalk up as (in my case) a good customer experience since I had a 5 year old with me. (Plus, I'm sure it makes clean up a snap!)

My kids' usability review:
Pros:

• He can practice his kindergarten math/writing*
  
• He can practice his "Super Hero" drawing (I'll take credit for that Batman though thank you very much)
  
• The name Macaroni is right there in the title! (Why is macaroni a perennial favorite of kids?)
  

Cons:

• Where exactly are we supposed to eat again?
  
• Wait...they're going to throw this all away when we're done?
  
• Papercuts. You seriously have to fold the edges of the paper over; this has happened to us several times.
  

*I drew pictures and he would spell out as much of the word as he could- We got to the letter "L" and of course I tried my hand at a lion. After two futile, and frankly unrecognizable attempts at the king of the jungle my son gives up asking me what it was. Upon hearing what it's supposed to be, he says to me: "you know dad...you could have just drawn a lemon." ...I thought it was time to move on to the letter 'M'

There's something...creepy about machines that display human qualities. From the "we are sorry" used in Microsoft's "This program has encountered a problem" dialog, to the doll that says "dumb mama!" when she gets "mad," we don't like it when computers impersonate us.

The $40,000 word is "anthropomorphism" and it just means "things that are given human qualities." We do it ourselves, naturally, so there's no cause for alarm. If you've ever named your car or believed that your pet is "trying to comfort you," you've anthropomorphized them.

How does this relate to toys? Well, dolls and stuffed animals have always tried to be "more human." Before technology, they were made impressive by the quality of the materials used, clothes and accessories that look "just like" their owners full-sized counterparts. And with the myriad technologies available now (voice chips, sensors, motors, screens), it seems the more a toy can trick us into believing it's human, the better it sells. 20 questions, digital pets, anyone?

But when can we (or should we?) use the technique when developing user-focused systems? First of all, try not to do it by accident. It only takes a subtle shift in tone: "I need a valid telephone number" vs "Please enter a valid telephone number." (use the second one, btw)

Second of all, fit with your theme. A video game probably benefits from a "virtual guide," but why did most people hate Clippy? Wrong setting. People were trying to get stuff done, and this stupid character kept interrupting their work. Anthropomorphism rarely works in "regular" applications. Even Skype, a very fun-themed application, doesn't use "I" for itself (and only uses "we" on their website when it's clear they're referring to the people in their company).

And last of all, don't do it unless you can really pull it off. A five year old might be "fooled" by a talking doll (our niece actually got mad at Amanda when she said "dumb mama"). There isn't a system yet, however, that can pass the Turing Test.

Usability principle: Usable systems rarely benefit from anthropomorphism. Steer clear!

Also see:
Part 1 Amazing oversight: forcing functions, and Part 2 Some assembly required: Buyers as users.

With Christmas upon us, I thought I'd blog about every child's favorite realm for the use of technology: Toys.

...before you can begin to play with Amazing Amanda, you must set the correct date and time.

We just bought Amazing Amanda for our niece, and this little gem of a quote was the first thing in the instruction manual. How could any toy begin with the words, "before you can play?" It's like a Big Mac with a label, "before you can eat this burger..."

Toys = play. It's the mathematics of childhood. Why would you add any other variables to that perfectly balanced equation?

Well, Amanda has certain features that are time-dependent. She "wakes up" at the same time as your child, she knows when Christmas and other holidays are (though there was nothing in the instructions about Kwanzaa or Hanukkah--the doll is Norwegian, I might mention).

But is time-dependence any reason to cripple her main function? (Play, in case you forgot, like the designers did). By erecting a barrier like this, you're saying that the user cannot continue without completing these tasks. The true story is that in a computer, it is often easier to make one brick wall than to build indivual boxes around all the affected functions.

So Amanda can't say, "Time for lunch, mama!"* She can still go potty, get fed, recognize when you brush her hair, change her clothes... The number of different things she can do is pretty...Amazing.

Anytime you feel the need to popup a dialog box, (Usability principle) stop and think: What can the user still do? You'll have a huge list, and you'll see that your super-important must-be-decided-now forcing function really only affects one tiny part of the user experience. Instead, build little boxes around just the things that really can't be done. Is it more difficult, slightly. Is it worth it, absolutely! When it's done right, the user feels like your technology is actually helping them instead of just getting in the way.

* For students of Norwegian, that's "Nå er det lunsjtid, mama!"

Part 2 Some assembly required: Buyers as users, Part 3 Just like me!: Anthropomorphism