Designing for Dormancy
An intricate nuance in the Internet of Things.
If a website isn’t being viewed by anyone, does it exist? This is the modern day equivalent of the classic question: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? Fortunately, the answer really doesn’t matter. In the world of the web, the show begins when someone enters a particular url and it’s over when the browser tab is closed.
But, let’s take a look at smart objects and wearable devices. Typically the object itself spends a small portion of it’s time in an animate state. The rest of the time it is inanimate, silently listening. Now, if the object is thrown in a drawer or hidden away in a closet, it’s no big deal. But that’s not how this new generation of products work. They are expected to be on and aware at all times, constantly updating a robust system of technical components. And at a moments notice, they will be activated by the user with the expectation that everything has been chugging along behind the scenes.
The object is not the product. It is merely a component.
Inspired by the bold statement the Canary team (@Canary) has incorporated into their 21st century design principles, this notion is the otherwise unspoken rule of the smart device movement. A smart device is only smart because of it’s communication with other digital properties. That can be an app, a website, the cloud or any combination of these, but collectively they form the service layer of the product where the processing and displaying of data occurs. Mix that with the object itself and now you have a holistic smart product. Without that network of components, the object isn’t any better than it’s 20th century counterpart. But this new network creates a slew of new design challenges including the following nuance.
If the practice of designing for interaction is user centric, than what happens when the user is removed?
Dor·man·cy, (n.):
The state of being devoid of external activity yet capable of being activated.
In this case, dormancy is the limbo that objects may find themselves in when they are working normally but not in use. For example, take the Nest Thermostat. It’s on all the time; it is constantly connected and controlling the heating system of the home. But the product isn’t in use until someone engages with it, hence our classic Interaction Design term: Users.
Okay, I know what you’re thinking: If there is no user engagement, then isn’t this just a systems engineering question? Without a user, there is no need for design, right? Wrong.
The most powerful moment of a connected product experience is the moment it is awakened by the user. This is the magic! Within that initial second, the product must prove that a complex operation has been occurring behind the scenes without any manual help in order to instill a long lasting trust in the user. There is a huge responsibility to deliver regardless of which component is called into action, never mind the scenarios when multiple components are activated simultaneously. And what about the difference between an hour of inactivity vs. months of inactivity? The designer must understand these scenarios and the system limitations in order to create the illusion of seamlessness.
Dormancy has many faces.
Dormancy, as discussed so far, is a result of user inactivity. But dormancy also occurs due to lost connections, exceeding component proximity maximums, or simply a dead battery. Fortunately, designing for these varied conditions only requires one solid solution.
First, consider how the system works in an ongoing manner without the support of the user and understand the role of each component. Which component talks to which of the other components? Who is “speaking” and who is “listening?” Which component is the source of truth for each piece of information (this can be at the data collection and/or the data processing level)? The notion of responsibility is the most critical question because if component responsibilities are clear, it’s easier to understand the mapping of the data flow and the relationship between components. It’s also easier to understand where the most accurate data is located compared to out-of-date or independently manipulated data sources.
Now, consider a scenario when a component drops out of the system. What breaks? What data flow stops? What can be supplied by a secondary source? How long will that component be removed? When it is reestablished, will the system update occur quickly, will it be drawn out, or will the user need to manually jumpstart the process? No matter how reliable the system and the technology, something will break and in those moments, the design must flex to accommodate and communicate the issue. In most cases, this is not high risk, it’s just annoying. But there may be product experiences in which this is detrimental. For example, if the system running a smart door lock were to fail, should the lock open itself or shut itself down in a locked state. Either could be correct depending on the system and the scenario.
Are you overwhelmed yet? Hopefully, not. But the truth is that this is complicated. A single designer isn’t going to solve this on their own; the design and development teams need to actively facilitate a conversation around how the system will work so that it can break gracefully. From there, key scenarios can be identified, providing focus for the design team. Much of the solution is purely communicating the success or failure of the product. Providing a user the appropriate amount of information will empower them to reengage the system rather than paralyze them with fear.
To date Interaction Designers, Experience Designers, UX Designers and the like, all design for active, user-based interaction. With the rise of the Internet of Things, I am in no way suggesting we create a new type of designer — that’s about the last thing our profession needs. But, I am suggesting that the system and the unseen experience be as well designed, if not better, than the readily seen experience. That means working across technical teams and components to choreograph the larger experience at play. After all, it’s the less glamorous, “behind the scenes” work that elevates a product from great to exceptional.
The thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own and do not reflect the views or opinions of my employer.
