Information Flow &
The God Interface
We do a lot of looking backwards in the world of User Experience (UX) Design. Human Centered Design(HCD) and data analytics are examples of successful decision making methodologies, based on a past model of the world. I propose a new model; a way to start thinking forward instead of backward. When creating new products and services, this new construct should include an understanding of the current state of information flow and a forward thinking mental model.
The Interface Effect
Alexander R. Galloway is an author and associate professor in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. His book, The Interface Effect evaluated the state of interfaces, and did some deep exploration into the identity of the interface. Galloway argues that the interface is not actually an object. As a UX Designer I was initially taken aback by this comment. With some gestation I began to understand what Galloway was arguing -the inherent unworkability of the interface.
Does the interface have Intrinsic Value? It does -as an obstacle. An interface is something that stands between the user and their ultimate goal. In order for an interface to exist, it has to be an unworkable object. Galloway defines the interface thusly:
The interface is this state of “being on the boundary.” It is that moment where one significant material is understood as distinct from another significant material. In other words, an interface is not a thing, an interface is always an effect. It is always a process or a translation… a fertile nexus. [1]
Galloway argues that the interface is more of an effect; a necessary puzzle that is understood along the path of users achieving their ultimate goal. The effect here is the realization that significant material is located in other places within the information architecture. So, the Interface is a realization of the underlying data structure of the experience. Interfaces are unworkable objects that add cognitive load to the end user. The interface effect is one of adding burden to the user while attempting to achieve their goal. If an interface actually has any intrinsic value, it must be that of unworkability.
So, why do we need interfaces? Good designers follow Dieter Rams’ 10 Principles of Design, and create as little design as possible. In UX design that means as little interface as possible. In the context of human factors that means as little cognitive load as possible. But why bother with interfaces at all? The answer is that interfaces provide control to the user. The unworkability of the interface is analogous to the level of agency the user has over the interface’s environment. Thus it is true the amount of cognitive load on the user, and the level of control the interface provides must also be linked. This is why limiting, “walled garden” interfaces like iPhoto are good for some users and bad for those who require more specific results. Good interfaces would reduce cognitive load, but they have the strong potential to reduce the user’s agency while doing so. I see the opportunities for improvement as vast, and primarily focused on making our digital layer as ubiquitous as possible while still providing the appropriate amount of agency to the user.
There will always be a need for some level of interactivity. Even if interfaces become invisible, users will still need a way to show intent of action. Results of an working an interface aren’t just more specific, they are also much closer to the user’s ideal goal. The reward for interface perseverance is more specific results. UX designers and product designers are doing everything in their power to reduce interfaces’ cognitive load on users. That reduction process is a key piece of evolution and improvement in interface design. Reduce the cognitive load of the unworkable.
The God Interface
A post from Jeff Atwood, the creator of StackOverflow.com also caught my attention recently. The post was about Randy Pauch, a computer scientist, worked to progress the implementation of virtual reality. One of the coolest things Mr. Pauch taught his students was to ask one question when problem solving:
What’s the God algorithm for this? — Well, when sorting a list, obviously God wouldn’t bother with a stupid Bubble Sort or Quick Sort or Shell Sort like us mere mortals, God would just immediately place the items in the correct order. Bam. One step.
For clarification, God is an analogy for an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being utilized as an ideal state of control and understanding in human-computer interaction. If an omnipotent, omniscient being were in charge of design, tasks would be completed almost immediately, as soon as the user’s free will evaluates a preferred decision, or even at the time a need is identified. Instead of simply looking at past data, we need to ask ourselves another question, “If God were making this, how would God do it?” Then, we take the technological constraints of the day, and work towards the closest approximation of the God Interface as possible.
With logins, users should simply enter a name. “Bam. One step.” God would have a simple process, if not log-in immediately. This mental model is a fun way to begin the problem solving process for computer scientists. As a thought exercise, I see potential to extend it into the realm of design thinking. Things should ideally just work shouldn’t they?
Any project or task involving UX can begin with the question, If God were designing this task/product/service, what would it look like? What would the user journey look like? The God Interface mental model can be useful for setting the goals and features of a system. We can try to, come as close to that goal as possible by applying analytical tactics (HCD interviews, Data Science, Usability Testing). Think of the God Interface as a benchmarking process, and as a complimentary tool to HCD methodology. The God Interface looks forward to the ideal case, while HCD and data model analysis look backwards at the real problems and opportunities of the user base. One of the applications of this method is the contextual control of information flow.
Information Flow
To expand this mental model, lets incorporate the most important commodity -Information. Google Now, your Twitter stream, Reddit feed, Facebook feed, and Buzzfeed are all example information conduits that present relevant data on your screens. Information is also the commodity that most heavily taxes our daily cognitive load. This is a big problem of the information age. We humans cannot evolve our neocortices to keep up with the amount of information produced by our modern information systems. Case-in-point, 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.
There is no way for us to properly process all of this data. We must pick and choose what to absorb as useful information. We have some help in parsing this data through different information channels. Your Pinterest board is likely quite different than your Twitter feed, which is also different from your search history. Choosing what feed or interface to view is a form of manually controlling information flow. Although this level of agency over your information resources is great, there is room for improvement. The largest benefits will come from receiving data at the most contextually relevant moment. Many believe the solution is contextual relevance of that information. In the Information Age, we need a means to improve our flow of information.
The key to success in the Information Age is mastering context. With an overabundance of information, getting the perfect piece of data at the right time will improve lives. We’re going to need well-designed mediums (and they are going to need interfaces) to help people manage their information flow. In a world of too much information, the interface effect should provide us with the most specifically useful data for the context at hand. That interface may be seen or unseen depending on the needs and context of the user. This is where the God Interface becomes useful. The God Interface is inherently ubiquitous, and contextual relevance is it’s competitive advantage.
Information flow design is a key opportunity for design and technology innovators. As designers, we should consider balancing agency and autonomy to control information flow. This conflict is at the core of future technologies. The God Interface is the tool for determining the amount of agency necessary. Designers usually take a backwards, UCD or data-driven approach to our solution methodology. The forward-looking God Interface can be a starting point to those solutions. When smart creatives are out solving problems, they should begin by considering the God Interface for Information Flow.
Tyler Schmidt is a Senior User Experience Designer at AKQA -San Francisco.
[1] Alexander Galloway, The Interface Effect p.33
