Computing Interfaces Haven’t Changed Much in 40 Years — Why?
The psychology of interface design for the masses
So How Did We Get Here?
It may sound crazy, but personal computing interfaces have not changed much in the past 40-ish years. Computers look fundamentally the same as they did in the 70s. Obviously, they have become much smaller, faster, more efficient, and more powerful. Their capabilities have increased tremendously, but the basic design remains strikingly similar. Computers still use 2D screen displays, QWERTY keyboards, and predominantly point-and-click interfaces complete with mouse and scroll wheel. Operating systems can’t get away from the classic desktop with the ‘Start’ menu, program dashboard, and linear file directories. Keyboards, mice, and screens have remained relatively the same size and shape for many years now, despite the fact that they may not represent an optimal design, and they certainly don’t represent how the human brain processes information (see this article on the QWERTY layout).
So why do computers still fundamentally look the same? Well, their look and feel has been overwhelmingly influenced by their initial designs. Computers look the way they do because of the way computer scientists and engineers designed them when personal computing was in its defining stages of development. To put it another way, computers look and act the way they do because of the technological limitations and design skills of computer engineers in the 70s.
Not too many core assumptions were challenged once a design settled in and there became an archetypal idea of “this is what a computer looks like.” People adapted, they developed habits, and it became easy to believe that computer designs were evolving efficiently. Once base guidelines were established, e.g. keyboard organization, key size and shape, mouse dimensions, there were only tweaks to these original designs — tweaks to optimize but not reinvent…even though these flat, list and menu-heavy designs do not accurately reflect how we think and process information.
Interface design has not scaled well, although technology has improved, connectivity has skyrocketed, and needs/use cases have drastically changed. Most changes have been incremental and in direct response to previous iterations. The reigning idea seems to be: “stick with what works.” For instance, each iteration of Windows or Mac operating systems makes small changes and improvements without altering too much of the previous interface. Attempts to make significant changes to user behavior are met with strong resistance. Windows 8 is a good example, introducing a new tile layout that challenged the traditional Windows interface and was met with vocal backlash (for a myriad of reasons). Although people desire change, they also crave familiarity. This resistance to change manifests even when the proposed change is clearly more efficient than the current workflow.
What Prevents Efficient Progress? The Answer May Lie in Anchor Theory
Once core assumptions create an idea in people’s minds, it becomes very hard to separate or redefine that. This is because early products create an “anchor” to which people compare all future iterations of the product — a cognitive bias known as the anchoring effect. Dan Ariely addresses the idea of anchors in Predictably Irrational, using the massive success of Starbucks as an example. Before Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts was (even more of) a coffee powerhouse. Consumers were anchored to the price point offered by Dunkin’, yet somehow, Starbucks was able to convince millions of coffee drinkers to consider its significantly higher prices. It now owns 36% of the national coffee market, compared to DD’s market share of 24%, and has twice the locations, although it was started 20 years later. How did Howard Schultz do this? According to Dan Ariely,
He worked diligently to separate Starbucks from other coffee shops, not through price but through ambience…He designed Starbucks from the very beginning to feel like a continental coffeehouse…Whereas Dunkin’ Donuts had small, medium, and large coffees, Starbucks offered Short, Tall, Grande, and Venti, as well as drinks with high-pedigree names like Caffe Americano, Caffe Misto, Macchiato, and Frappuccino. Starbucks did everything in its power…to make the experience feel different — so different that we would not use the prices at Dunkin’ Donuts as an anchor, but instead be open to the new anchor that Starbucks was preparing for us.
Although Dan Ariely is talking about anchors in the context of price, the principle is the same. Sometimes, in order to get people to accept a new idea, it needs to be packaged as something completely new. For example, a revolutionary mouse would not look like a mouse at all, and would likely not even be called a mouse. It would be a new tool with which to navigate your digital databases. Newness helps people ditch their original anchors and embrace new ones. Ties to previous iterations remind people of their original anchors. It’s time to devise some truly out-of-the-box ideas to improve the way we interact with our digital interfaces.
Milestones in Interface Design
I believe there have only been two major leaps in computing design — two changes that have drastically improved the way we interact with information via technology: the transition from command-line to graphical user interfaces (GUIs), and the subsequent jump to touchscreen interfaces.
Now, we find ourselves at the cusp of an interface design revolution, with the advent of virtual reality, augmented reality, gestural control, voice command, and haptic feedback. These tools bring information off the screen and allow for intuitive arrangements of information, arrangements that we may better understand and remember. We don’t think in lists and menus; we are spatial beings, and these new tools will help us portray information in a way that more naturally resembles how we think. Future leaps in computing design may conceivably come from more fully engaging our other senses, e.g. effectively sonifying data and leveraging our precise sound discrimination to convey meaning. A previously indistinct field is emerging and starting to take shape.
Deviations from the familiar may be met with surprise and curiosity but also disgust and backlash. It might feel safer to stick to what we know and have adapted to (after all, learning a new keyboard layout would be quite difficult). But rather than us adapting to our technology, maybe our tech should adapt to us. Human factors design examines our interactions with products to develop the most ergonomic systems. Maybe it’s time to dive deeper, into brain factors design, and create products that more seamlessly communicate with our brains. Shouldn’t technology feel like an extension of our own minds and bodies? Let’s make digital interfaces adapt to the way we work, the way we think, and the way we naturally process information.
