October 03, 2007

The Hidden Interface

One of my favorite topics is the influence of business decisions on interface design. It's an unfortunate truth that the underlying business structure and decisions will invariably affect the interface. It's important to recognize this fact and work to improve both simultaneously.

Many people falsely assume that interface design can mask any ugly complexities of the underlying business. Others don’t even think about it because they can’t change it. In either case, we need to be doing more. In my experience, this is an ongoing educational process that is often more difficult than designing the interface. You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day, it’s still a pig.

Recently, I came across an example of this in my work on the issue tracker. I invested a significant amount of thought upfront and made some tough decisions to scale back the issue tracking process. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was inspiring what would ultimately become the interface for managing issue status.

The final issue life-cycle that I'm using.Figure 1 The simplified issue cyle with three steps.

I was stumbling through a variety of ideas on how to let people seamlessly update issue status with comments. The effort was actually going pretty poorly until I was looking at my underlying process for tracking issues. (Figure 1) I saw the process and quickly realized that, with a few radio buttons, the interface could work just like the process looks.

Open -> Resolved -> Closed radio buttons.Figure 2 The three status options that mirror the issue lifecycle.

Affordance

One of the reasons I’m so excited about this little aspect is the level of affordance it provides. It’s design and form imply its purpose. It doesn’t simply communicate the status. Instead it communicates where that issue is in the process. (Figure 2) The interface actually helps to explain what the underlying process is. The simplicity of the two go hand-in-hand. Also, the representations of the elements can change depending on the status to help communicate the relative impact of decisions.

Implementation

Of course it looks nice, but can it be done? The answer there is easy. A list or fieldset could easily group the elements for both accessibility and good clean semantic markup. Then, with a sprinkle of CSS, the arrows can be added in as background images, and before you know it, we have a simple and elegant solution to what could otherwise be a pretty ugly problem.

Summary

It’s easy to take these kind of decisions for granted, but in reality, I would have never been able to create such a concise and effective interface if the process was any longer than it is. Even a fourth step in the process would have led to a prohibitively long list of choices.

The moral of the story is that while we may have control over the interface, it’s often more valuable to take a hard look at the underlying process. Of course, that kind of effort can get into politics and be incredibly difficult, but much of the time, it’s actually the right solution.

Comments

Comments are here for discussion related to this article. If you have a comment or question not related to the article, please . Please try to keep things constructive and on-topic. Comments that are not constructive or on-topic will be deleted.

well, yeah, affordance

October 04, 2007 at 10:01 AM by Colin

The underlying affordance here is that which you have given yourself by being the sole architect of this project. But your dead on about how the underlying business effects the design profoundly, and often changes must be made there to produce a useful design. True, but lofty in the real world.

#

Lofty, but worth fighting for...

October 04, 2007 at 10:29 AM by Garrett Dimon

Colin - It’s easy to dismiss this as lofty in the real world. That’s the problem. Too many people accept that things are impossible and then settle. Is it always possible? No, and it’s not easy, but it’s not supposed to be. That’s why we call it work. :)

The point is that interface design isn’t simply about covering a bad process. Sometimes it exposes the inherent problems of the process, and we should be making an effort to influence improving the underlying process rather than just accepting it as it is.

#

brilliant.

October 09, 2007 at 05:03 PM by nate koechley

clear. pretty. slim.

#

Well said!

October 16, 2007 at 01:51 PM by Jim Ramsey

Garrett - Your last comment is right on the money. Small, unknown companies become industry leaders by looking for ways to improve processes that aren’t working.

#

a coup

October 17, 2007 at 07:59 PM by Jennifer

Your solution is so simple that that one might miss its brilliance. But isn’t that the test of truly good design? An elegant and intuitive interface all but disappears from sight. Yes, yes, I know figure 2 is a few radio buttons and arrows. Or is it? Brilliant, beautiful, wow. Thanks for sharing.

#

Simplicity

March 07, 2010 at 12:02 AM by silver bullion

As what have been said, “Making something simpler is often a case of relocating complexity, rather than just eliminate it from the user-design relationship although it sometimes gives the impression that designers are making a binary choice.”

#

HTML isn't allowed, but Markdown is enabled.

Sifter. Hosted bug and issue tracking.
Hi. I’m Garrett Dimon, a freelance designer/developer in Dallas, TX. This is my site about people, design, and technology. I designed and built a bug and issue tracking application called Sifter. Still have questions? Feel free to .
Browse related articles tagged… accessibility, design, interface, process, sifter, usability

Subscribe. Proud member of 9rules. Powered by SimpleLog.