Interface fatigue
I suffer from interface fatigue. I was trying to describe the idea to my son; his response was ‘you’re getting old, get over it’. But I argued vehemently that it wasn’t a question of age it was an issue with interfaces. It is taken me about six weeks to come up with a reasonably (!) well thought through argument why what I felt it was true. It took time because I realised that in answering the question I needed to reason at an evolutionary level, In steps.
First an example of interface fatigue. Let’s take the humble mobile phone. In the last seven years I have had seven mobile phones, 1 Apple (brilliant but it broke and was too expensive to replace) 4 android phones (brilliant but as you will read from my posts elsewhere I somewhat dislike Google and was confused by its slavish mimicry of Apple in some areas and perverse differences elsewhere) and then there are 3 Microsoft Windows 10 phones (brilliant but? Jury out).
As a result, I almost can’t make a phone call. Everybody time I seem to have to learn afresh how to do it, trying to recall the sequence of steps each device requires. Perhaps I should accept my son’s argument; it is a sign of ageing. But guess what, we are an ageing population, I use a mobile phone and I want my voice to be heard!
Let’s look at screen based technology interfaces. I started out on a Windows PC MS Dos, I went onto an Apple Mac original operating system, then onto a Silicon Graphics workstations running their flavour of UNIX alongside the Mac, then on to Windows starting from before version 95 and every beyond, with dashes of iOS and iPad thrown in in between. Perhaps you begin to see the problem. In many a person’s lifetime there will face significant changes to the interface they use and it’s making this guy confused. Maybe he’s stupid, but not that stupid that he can’t reason this argument. Maybe there is ‘Another Way To Look At It’ or ‘…At This’ (TM) (my tagline).
If such technology continues to change as it has we are destined continuously learn new interfaces and accept the challenges. Or, as an alternative, slavishly follow one brand. But what if that brand succumbs to market pressure like Nokia and ceases trading? We might find ourselves severely disadvantaged in the job race if our loyalty were to suddenly render us unable to cope with an alternative phone, tablet, computer et cetera et cetera.
To understand the disconnect let’s look at conflict-of-interest. What does the manufacturer want? He clearly wants to introduce new features that will differentiate his product from the competition. What does the consumer want? Principally they want to make a phone call or access a file. Or am I wrong? Have we moved beyond such simple objectives in an increasingly connected society? Have we been asked what we want? Should it be us or the technology companies who decide. Typically, we want to access the Internet, write a document and more recently communicate by other means such as Facebook and Twitter. These stand-alone sub brands I can choose to sign up to or not whereas the hardware manufacturers are not giving me the same option.
The interface you pass through as a means to reach something you want beyond. It is a means to an end not and in its self, yet, as I suggest later, that is not what the advertisers seem to suggest. But it becomes in the interests of the manufacturer to make the interface, in some manner, ‘more in your face’ than the software you strive to reach via it. Who wins out? The consumer? Not if you perceive such devices are a means to an end. The manufacturer wins by convincing us that their interface can, in itself, enhance your life, implying their device IS the end not a means to an end. By doing so they build their brand. In this classic tug-of-war and I fear the technology makers are winning.
Maybe some of you have used more interfaces than I have, and will claim what I opine is ‘no problem for them?’. Good for you, I just don’t think you represent the masses.
The problem hits me when I am in a rush to make a phone call. Urgently I reach for my phone but face the challenge to remember how to actually make a call. All the previous rote learned pattrns flood in. Let’s take look at it in steps. First action, I need to unlock the phone. I seem to remember that because this principally physical action proves easier to retain than what’s beyond. Personally I remember logical, spatially orientated steps, usually something like press-touch-slide, or press-slide-swipe, press-press-swipe or swipe and enter a pin, or put your finger over a sensor, there are so many. The reason physical actions are easier to establish is because we can connect the physical image of the object with the physical image of the steps I need to access that object.
As the screen lights the problem is ‘what next?’.
Make a phone call? Make a phone call? Make a phone call? I am searching for the answer. I guess I’m looking for the symbol of a phone’ and asking myself what do they make it look like on this device? My brain expects the symbol of a phone yet in the rush of the moment a disconnect emerges between the desire to recognise a phone symbol and the ability to recognise one specific, if any, symbol at all. So I pondered on whether this was due to early onset dementia.
We talk about left and right-handed sides of the brain, some people are very organised, others can’t see colour, some think in pictures, some think in concepts, some in words, others in arguments and they are the ones that make great barristers. But in this particular process of recognition, I don’t think we differ much.
Allow me to provide an example. Hopefully this example will illustrate the problem and at the same time try argue against it being a function of age, fatigue, or weed.
Over period of 45 years I have ridden hundreds of different motorcycles. For as many motorcycles I rode, prior to the advent of the right-hand gear change, I have written an equal number since, with a left-hand gear change, often switching between the two on a daily basis. Don’t underestimate this fundamental repositioning of such rudimental controls. It required a massive shift in the mental software needed to ride safely. On the opposite side from the gear change is always the back brake. In moments of undue stress and imminent danger (that covers 99% of road motorcycle riding) you may instinctively jam on the wrong one and the results can be embarrassing. Change gear, when the intention was to brake had the effect of propelling a motorcycle forward faster or locking the back wheel (or halfway between the two if you just happen to be revving the engine for some silly reason). Whereas failing to hit the back brake severely negated intended slowing effects. Result, at best brown trousers, at worst a trip to A&E. I don’t think many people realised how major this shift was.
Looking back on it now I’m surprised few people were killed. As a 16 years old motorcyclist, riding a 650 cc, 110mph machine you were utterly reliant on the ability to react fast. At that age the single underlying urge was to ride extremely fast, on what were the then pretty empty roads. Brought up on a diet of second world war fighter ace daring, it was the way to show you were truly living on the edge. With less traffic on the road moments of crisis were fewer, the need to overtake minimised. What killed you was someone pulling out of a side road, i.e. sudden unexpected obstacles. Statistically meeting one was a 50% certainty, good odds for the ultimate dance with death. Life-threatening incidents would occour suddenly, randomly and usually at the moment when you let your concentration slip. Many did not get past lesson one which is - never ever momentarily remind yourself of how much fun you are having as that could be the last ever thought. On reflection not a bad way to go. So factor in the sensory overload you needed a rock solid way to switch side from one side to the other or accept your failure as the last thing you ever thought, instead. Being able to switch sides of the gear change repeatedly, reliably and in face of imminent crisis required deep-seated, almost hardwired learning.
The principal I am trying to describe is how deeply embedded some processes become. They entered the area I reserve to program infallible life-threatening fight or flight response skills. But I was rubbish at it to begin with, which minimised life expectancy somewhat. So I worked on a way to learn this response infallibly, to swap between left and right hand gear change by wilfully rerouting the algorithm. I guess I’m not saying it’s infallible, just that if it hasn’t killed me by the time I die then its infallible enough. If we add the fact that my current 1942 Harley Davidson has a left-hand foot clutch replacing the gear change, operated by rocking the foot left foot forwards, diametrically opposite to the car clutch. Mastering that this third variant required yet another modification to the brain software pathway. And I’m not talking about three months retraining, I’m talking about getting off one bike and straight on another and being to ride it straight away.
This illustrates that in the brain there must sit top level embedded responses that we can switch via a relatively easy mechanism. Alongside sits our ‘don’t make same mistake twice mechanism’. I guess my fear therefore is we can’t make this switch very often or very easily without concerted cognitive effort, maybe just one or two instinctive life-threatening responses at a time. Everything else is deeper and less hard wired. Is this therefore the causes of interface fatigue?
If we accept there is an inherent constraint on our brain capacity to repeatedly reprogram a mundane task because an interface changes continuously then it is possible to argue interface fatigue exists. It's a problem that emerges when we are tasked to recollect the mundane under pressure. Yet those making mobile phones seem to think, probably for commercial reasons, that lauding the uniqueness of their interface is worthwhile as a means to gain momentary advantage over their competitors. In other words the commercial imperative is obscuring the obvious. The interface of all devices could and should become a commodity not a marketing opportunity.
Naturally manufacturers will resist because it turns them into box stylists not lifestyle providers. Fundamentally I disagree that commercial advantage is adequate reason to make modifications to this core aspect, the interface. It could be causing a greater psychological challenge than we might reasonably expect. Our brains are hard to reprogram, and in doing so they are requiring us to jump through their hoops not ours. It’s neither logical nor necessary. Other industries have faced it, look at the automotive industry.
Every style of car from sports to 4x4 shares a fundamentally identical interface. One that allows 99% of the population (who drives) to step from one to the other and interact successfully (i.e. drive) within minutes. Try getting into a vintage car with a clutch is in the middle though, just make sure to wear two pairs of underpants.
My assertion is that we can, when required, program a limited number of life-threatening ‘switch’ positions, but only a few. The deepest, i.e. those wired with the shortest possible pathway, seem to be things like jump when you see a snake, stand back when you see a fire and run when you see something coming at you, (or for others, dodge or jump). Try a simple psychological test. Put someone blindfolded close in front of a big screen on which you show car speeding directly at them, ADD SOUND, whip the blindfold off when you start the video. Do they instinctively dodge run or jump? Is the first movement left or right, backwards or forwards or up and down? Up and down and maybe you evolved from a bird, left or right and you possibly retain the instinct an insect that preferred to run sideways and find cover and if you turn your head and twist violently perhaps you are a runner and evolved mostly from a fast mammal. I have only just thought of this but I’m sure some psychologist has tested it, please point me to articles.
The ability of those like me who prefer to retain this crucial portion of their brains in readiness to enjoy life and avoid threats, must instead hardwire a series of actions considerably more complex than ‘BRAKE BLOODY HARD’. By contrast, use of something mundane yet important depends on hardwiring I would rather use to retain my flight and fight response i.e. high in the brain. For that reason, I think I am find daily interaction with modern interfaces increasingly frustrating. Its causing unnecessary fatigue.
I’m almost considering going back to a standard desk phone. Using your landline occasionally makes you realise the quality of the call rises, and I don’t mean the sound quality. The fact that you know where somebody is all can in your imagination compose an image of that person, in a place seems to enhance the quality of communication. You may not know their exact location but you can tie them down to an area say Detroit, then a little bit north and a bit left, the house on the left on certain road and you have seen the pictures of the house on Facebook. It evolved from an age when the location of our friends and enemies was of great importance, which explains why Game of Thrones is so popular. With a mobile phone call, the first words of most calls are, ‘where are you?’.
One need only look at advertising where the typical visual metaphor is of joyous group of fun loving youngsters making use of some esoteric software gizmo. Typically, such adverts hold the objective of depicting how the abilities of a particular brand of mobile phone will considerably enhance our enjoyment. It seems increasingly divorced from reality, serving only to show how much the objectives of the manufacturer differ from ours.
My reaction is that advertisers and brand managers conveniently ignore this necessity to use important brain capacity to learn their interface. Crucial parts of your brain should, in my opinion, be used to avoid life threatening scenarios. Such as global warming.
Comments