CHAPTER 4: Affordances and Metaphors – User Interface Design for Programmers

CHAPTER
4
Affordances
and Metaphors

Developing a user interface where the program model matches the user model is not easy. Sometimes, your users might not have a concrete expectation of how the program works and what it's supposed to do. There is no user model.


When the user model is incomplete or
wrong, the program can use affordances
or metaphors to show the user its model.


In these cases, you are going to have to find ways to give the user clues about how something works. With graphical interfaces, a common way to solve this problem is with metaphors. But not all metaphors are created equal, and it's important to understand why, metaphors work so you know if you've got a good one.

The most famous metaphor is the "desktop metaphor" used in Windows and the Macintosh (see Figure 4-1). The computer screen behaves something like a real world desk. You have these little folders with little files in them, which you can drag around into trash cans, and cute little pictures of real world objects like printers. To the extent that this metaphor works, it's because the little pictures of folders actually remind people of folders, which makes them realize that they can put documents into them.

FIGURE 4-1


The classic desktop metaphor

Take a look at Figure 4-2, a screenshot from Kai's Photo Soap. Can you guess how to zoom in?

FIGURE 4-2


Can you guess how to zoom in with Kai's Photo Soap?

It's not very hard. The magnifying glass is a real world metaphor. People know what magnifying glasses do. And there's no fear that the zoom operation is actually changing the size of the underlying image, since that's not what magnifying glasses do.

A metaphor, even an imperfect one, works a lot better than none at all. Can you figure out how to zoom in with Microsoft Word, as shown in Figure 4-3?

FIGURE 4-3


OK, now how do you zoom in with Microsoft Word?

Word has two tiny magnifying glasses in their interface. One of them is on the Print Preview button, which actually zooms out, and the other is on the Document Map button, whatever that is. The actual way to change the zoom level here is with the dropdown box that is currently showing "100%." There's no attempt at a metaphor, so it's harder for users to guess how to zoom. This is not necessarily a bad thing; zooming is probably not important enough in a word processing application to justify as much screen space as Kai gives it. But it's a safe bet that more Kai users will be able to zoom in than Word users.

Affordances

Well-designed objects make it clear how they work just by looking at them. Some doors have big metal plates at arm-level. The only thing you can do to a metal plate is push it. You can't pull it. You can't rotate it. In the words of usability expert Donald Norman, the plate affords pushing. Other doors have big, rounded handles that just make you want to pull them. They even imply how they want you to place your hand on the handle. The handle affords pulling. It makes you want to pull it.

Other objects aren't designed so well and you can't tell what you're supposed to do. The quintessential example is the CD jewel case, which requires you to place your thumbs just so and pull in a certain direction. Nothing about the design of the box would indicate how you're supposed to open it. If you don't know the trick, it's very frustrating, because the box just won't open.

The best way to create an affordance is to echo the shape of the human hand in "negative space." Look closely at the (excellent) Kodak DC-290 digital camera, shown in Figures 4-4 and 4-5.

FIGURE 4-4


The Kodak DC290 Digital Camera, front view. Notice the rubber grip at left and the rubber nubbin in the lower right.

On the front, you can see a big rubber grip that looks like your right fingers should fit there. Even smarter, on the back in the lower left corner you can see an indent that looks uncannily like a thumbprint. When you put your left thumb there, your left index finger curls snugly on the front of the camera, between the lens and another rubber nubbin. It provides a kind of comforting feeling you haven't felt since you sucked your thumb (and curled your index finger around your nose).

The Kodak engineers are just trying to persuade you to hold the camera with both hands, in a position that ensures the camera will be more stable and even keeps stray fingers from blocking the lens by mistake. All this rubber is not functional; its sole purpose is to encourage you to hold the camera correctly.

Good computer UI uses affordances, too. About ten years ago, most push buttons went "3D." Using shades of grey, they appear to pop out of the screen. This is not just to look cool: it's important because 3D buttons afford pushing. They look like they stick out and they look like the way to operate them is by clicking on them. Unfortunately, many Web sites these days (unaware of the value of affordances) would rather have buttons that look cool rather than buttons which look pushable; as a result, you sometimes have to hunt around to figure out where to click. Look at the very top of the E*TRADE home page shown in Figure 4-6.

FIGURE 4-5


Back view. See the thumbprint in the lower left?

FIGURE 4-6


The E*TRADE home page. Which parts of the black banner are clickable?

On the black banner at the top, The GO and LOG ON buttons pop out and look like you can click on them. The SITE MAP and HELP buttons don't look so clickable; in fact, they look exactly like the QUOTES label, which isn't clickable.

About four years ago, many windows started sprouting three little ridges that look like a grip on the lower right corner (see Figure 4-7).

FIGURE 4-7


The grip in the lower right corner affords dragging.

It looks like the kind of thing somebody would put on a slide switch to increase the friction. It affords dragging. It just begs to be dragged to stretch the window.

Tabbed Dialogs

A problem that seems to vex programmers (especially the ones who neglected to buy this book and read Chapter 3) is dialog boxes with just too many settings to fit on the screen. The only way to deal with this is to create a dialog that changes dynamically. For example, look closely at the Preferences dialog from Netscape Navigator shown in Figure 4-8.

FIGURE 4-8

Netscape's way of dealing with too many options.

Now, you and I are elite programming hackers with a lot of experience with these kinds of dialogs. So when we look at Figure 4-8, we immediately understand that choosing one of the categories from the left hand part of the screen is going to magically change which options are available on the right hand part of the screen.

For some reason, this type of indirection was incredibly logical the programmers who designed it, but many users didn't understand it. The problem? Well, most people are not elite programming hackers.

Most people would never guess that choosing something from the list on the left is supposed to change the contents of the dialog on the right: there's no visual reason to think that. In fact, what most people think is that the list on the left is nothing more than another setting, and they are afraid to touch it because it seems like a pretty scary setting that they don't understand.

When you do usability tests with dialogs like that, and you ask people to change one of the settings not actually shown on the main page (in this case, "Navigator"), you'll find that a remarkable number of people just can't figure out how to do it. When Microsoft did a usability test with a similar dialog from an old version of Microsoft Word, only 30% of the users succeeded at the task. A full 70% simply gave up without accomplishing the task they were given.

So, the Microsoft Word team switched to the famous tabbed dialogs like the one shown in Figure 4-9.

FIGURE 4-9


Internet Explorer uses tabs.

When they tried the tabbed dialogs in the usability lab, usability shot up from 30% to 100%. Let me tell you from experience that there are just not a whole lot of things that you can do that will improve your usability from 30% all the way to 100%.

Tabbed dialogs are a great affordance. It's really obvious from Figure 4-9 that you have six tabs; it's really obvious which tab you're on, and it's really obvious how to switch to a different tab. Given the remarkable success of this metaphor and the fact that the code for tabbed dialogs is built into modern operating systems and available practically for free, it's a wonder you still see applications that don't take advantage of them. These applications suffer from actual, measurable, real world usability problems because they refuse to get with the program.

FIGURE 4-10


The Napster 2.0 user interface has five separate screens (Chat, Library, Search, Hot List, and Transfer), and you use the buttons at the top to switch among them. This is an obvious candidate for tabs. Here's the weird thing: the Napster code is actually using the Windows tabbed dialog control, but for some reason, it's running in a funny mode that displays as buttons rather than tabs. So Shawn Fanning, the Napster programmer, could have literally flipped one bit to get a more usable interface.