Newsmaker: PC or people--who's the boss?

(continued from previous page)

These are extreme cases that we can learn from--if we can make these devices work well on their own in terms of basic functionality but in combination--this social relationship among appliances.

In some sense, I want to be a sociologist, to understand social relationships between electronic devices and us as a group, people.

How does the PC fit into this emerging world given its nature as a general-purpose device?
Buxton: I think the PC is here to stay. I think of other technologies relative to the PC a little by analogy to cinema, then television, then video games, etc. None of those things replaced live theater. They just helped us understand that things that didn't fit live theater now had a better outlet. Likewise, we found out that television wasn't the same as cinema. Video games were not the same as TV. And we found out the Internet wasn't the same as television. There are locations or social conventions that are wrapped around these things, both in terms of expectations and when you do them.

We'll see the same thing (with PCs and other devices). With some new appliances and devices coming out, some of what's causing problems with the PC by overloading it will be offloaded to more appropriate platforms that complement that PC. It's not going to go away, but its dominance as the primary channel with which we interact with computers will be lessened. It will find its proper place as opposed to the over-inflated importance it has right now.

I'm sure you've heard this rant before, but I'm constantly looking for alternatives to the standard computer mouse. Can you give me your thoughts on where we are on man-machine interfaces and what you think the primary interface will be going forward?
Buxton: On the one hand, much of the change has already happened, but because it works so well you don't even notice it.

Any product designer who thinks what they're designing is the thing in the box is completely missing the point.

For example, I play this game when I give talks where I say "e-commerce" and ask people what they think of. People often say Amazon, IBM, eBay. But I'd say maybe the company Symbol would be the right company. Well, you say, who the hell is Symbol? They make bar code scanners at the supermarket.

You realize there is essentially a PC. Instead of the mouse it has another input device, called a bar code scanner. It's all transparent. It's so seamless that we don't even notice it.

If we start looking around, you can say that you don't even have a brake pedal. You have a pedal interface to your car's software.

It's embedded, it's hidden and it's effective. It's a little bit like plumbing--you don't even notice it unless it breaks. We're starting to see things where you have a computer embedded.

So for me, one of my principles is if you recognize there's a computer there, it's potentially a failure of design. Digital cameras are nothing but computers that have photons in and pixels out. A digital camera is a personal computer that does not have schizophrenia. It has no identity crisis.

Why do think it takes so long for new interfaces to be used? We've had pen-based computing for years, for example.
Buxton: Things take a long time to take hold, and innovation has more to do with behaviors and human potential. In many ways, my entire career is a scam. I pretend I'm a computer scientist, but the technology I try to know most about is technology about the human.

I believe absolutely that any product designer who thinks what they're designing is the thing in the box is completely missing the point. When you design anything, what you're designing is an experience and experience in context. The things, the boxes, are simply the vehicles that afford that experience. If you don't design from that larger perspective, we're going to get it wrong.

You've worked with creative professionals. How does that relate to the design of software for others?
Buxton: I've worked largely with designers, musicians and filmmakers in the past because it's such a stimulating population to design for. It keeps your juices going. I would say that everything I've done in that context, though, has also led back to people in day-to-day jobs.

Creativity in innovation is really important...Any product can be delightful, and they don't have to be boring. Usability is important, but it's not sufficient.

Is has to be fun as well as useful?
Yes, appropriate. Why does a businessman spend money on a pen that is just wonderful to work with? It's not just for prestige. The act of conducting one's work with the right tools can be inspiring. It feeds the quality of work. And hopefully can have a domino effect.

As you talk about great products and things that make people happy, I think about Apple and how they've had several hits over the years. What's your assessment of Microsoft and how it takes these design principles into account?
Buxton: Anybody who has done any competitive sports knows there's no joy in beating someone who's incompetent or out of shape, so I have huge respect for Apple. I think they've performed really well in design and are outstanding. They're very worthy competitors, and I look forward to showing them that we can do way better.

Because Microsoft is such a large company, our perception is dominated by what we see in the core products like Office and Word, and we forget that much of the Macintosh experience is based on those products. Make sure we remember that.

Outside of that, there are sets of products where Microsoft is investing in terms of new opportunities that do have an element of design, like the Xbox or smart watches.

My sense is Microsoft is in transition from being an engineering-led company to as much a design-led company. There are more designers at Microsoft on any single team as there were not long too long ago in the entire company. It's a wonderful change.  

More Newsmakers

About time!

This is really great, even though it's ten or twenty years late.

I really hope, for the sake of the User, this guy makes a difference at all levels. That last paragraph says it all.

[Blito]

Tired of the cameraphone?

Also this could be a better thing for saftety as well like not even knowing if you have a camera on your device and it's connected somewhere. Also I think MS should take more of a design consulting role as well as they were always more behind-the- scenes. When they pushed IBM aside and came out with Windows they got beat up too much on the front lines. For example Windows being too all-in- one. So this is a step in the right direction I think.

[Charleston Charge]

Positive Changes

I think MS has been hiring some very good and talented people lately who will be making a positive change and impact for the company. Hopefully in the near future we will be seeing some good things as a result of these individuals.

[RicktheBrick]

What computers should know

There is no reason why computers should not know almost everything of importance. A computer in a automobile should know where it is located. It should know everything about that location. That is the speed limit and thus not allow the automobile to break that limit. It should also know if there is a reason to stop such as a stop sign or traffic light and also respond to that condition if the driver refuses to acknowledge it. Every automobile should be part of a wi-fi network as it should report it speed, location and direction of travel to all nearby automobiles. Corrective action should be started if the computers detects a collision. In the home the computer should also know everything. There should be a microphone and speakers in every room. It should be able to recognize by sound everything that causes flow(electricity, water, and gas) so it can monitor all of them. It should be able to initiate corrective action when it can not explain any flow. It should also be able to interact with humans. It should know when one is present and if that person needs help in any fashion. Most of which could be done with a simple yes or no question. Such as are you fine?, are you leaving?, will you be away for more than an hour?

[Jonthin]

Microsoft. Do something really well???

Fat chance... Microsoft products that I have known are designed,
then and now, to be over-engineered; incredibly complex and
inefficient.

They need to start from the ground-up and do things SIMPLY. Make
the product efficient, easy to use and understand. Why can't
Microsoft learn from Apple? They have been making software for
Apple for years but they seem so stupid that they miss the point all
the time. This guy will have his work cut out for sure.

[LordKalthorn]

Apple?

Haha. You realise of course that the only reason Apple got even the faintest chance to work from the ground up on OS X is because OS 9 was so completely dreadful that breaking any form of backward compatibility and starting from scratch was the only way to gain customers? Windows, Office, Internet Explorer, Media Player, Dynamics, everything really, work. They work perfectly fine; they may be complex and compared to Apple programs that get the chance to know precisely the system they're working with they are probably inefficient but they work on more PCs than there have ever been or ever will be Apples. Even if they started from scratch right now we both know they wouldn't be finished for ten, twelve years. The reason it is complex and inefficient because of that is that to code for such a ridiculously huge customer base you need that or the entire thing would fall through. You just plain cannot code for a Billion people Simply.