The Principles of Interaction Design
And how they apply to “spaces” and “teams”
If you ever ask someone who went to design school for a book recommendation, chances are they’d recommend Don Norman’s — The Design of Everyday Things.
In his seminal book, Don Norman— outlines 6 key principles of interaction design.
The 6 principles are as follows:
1. VISIBILITY
This principle asks — are the key features of the product or service— visible?
Problems arise when we cannot “see” how to use a device. Auto-faucets are a great example. In auto-faucets, often visible knobs, dials or buttons are replaced by invisible and ambiguous “active zones” that use sensor technology.
This is an example of reduced visibility of key features — in a product.
2. FEEDBACK
The feedback principle asks, is there a way for the user to know if they have used the product correctly? Is there a signal for them to be sure?
An example of good feedback might be the charging cable of the Mac — which is magnetic and locks in with a click sound and also has a glowing dot, letting the user know that the plug is firmly in the socket.
3. CONSTRAINTS
The principle of constraints asks — is there a limit to the range of possible interactions the user can perform, and is it easy for the user to intuitively understand that limit or constraint?
For example, conversational interfaces are popular these days because they provide the opportunity to “speak” to a computer. However, these interfaces often struggle with a lack of “constraints”.
With limitless possibilities of what you could potentially say to the computer, it becomes impossible to know what kind of queries the interface actually supports, which might be frustrating to a user.
4. MAPPING
The principle of mapping is about having a clear relationship between controls and their effects.
Ideally, any mapping should feel as natural as possible.
Stove tops are a great example. When you see the image on the left, the mapping is not very clear because it’s difficult to determine which control knob operates which burner.
In the image on the right, it’s clearer as to which knob controls which burner, hence representing a better mapping.
5. CONSISTENCY
The principle of consistency refers to having similar elements for achieving similar tasks.
Consistent elements throughout an experience make for simpler usage.
Below is an example of poor consistency — that is, where there are too many different styles used within the same interface.
6. AFFORDANCE
The principle of affordance allows people to know how to use a given product.
Essentially “to afford” means to give a clue.
Don Norman talks at length about how doors often have poor affordances.
How often have you come up to a door, unsure of whether to push or pull the door intuitively?
One best practice Norman talks about is to put a sheet of metal at around arm height on the side of the door that needs to be pushed to make it clear that it must be pushed instead of being pulled.
Such a simple solution, is it not? There is no way — you would think of pulling this door. There is only one clear action. It doesn’t even require a sign.
Affordance (Principle 6) has some similarity with Visibility (Principle 1) — however they are not the same.
Visibility asks if key product features are visible. Affordance asks if the product affords a clue as to how it should be used.
As you may guess, visibility may have an impact on affordance, however the two are not the same.
Applying these principles to “spaces”
While recently thinking about what an optimal “team space” might look like, I stumbled upon this video explaining how having roads with minimal signs and crossings — what one might call a “shared space design”, might actually make streets safer.
It intrigued me, and immediately made me think of Don Norman’s principles of interaction design, and I wondered — how these principles might apply in this kind of a situation?
My current hypothesis is that — in a shared space situation, most of these principles will be important.
Visibility for the pedestrian to be able to see the rest of the shared space clearly (and vice-versa for the vehicle owner), Feedback for the pedestrians and vehicle owners to give each other signs (to cross or stop), which are mutually well-understood, Consistency to ensure that the shared space in one location is not radically different from the shared space in another (so as to not confuse the pedestrians and car drivers as they move around the city), and finally Affordance, critically, given the open and free nature of the space (so both pedestrians and car drivers are intuitively aware how to use the space).
Applying these principles to “teams”
Finally, this led me to the question of how we can design “team interactions” in a manner that embodies some of these principles that designers have been swearing by for decades now.
Here is my humble attempt:
Visibility:
- Does every team member have an insight into the work (and progress) of other team members (with an orientation towards learning and not scrutiny)?
- What systems, processes or rituals can help bring the right amount of visibility into each other’s work, to generate learning, foster connections, and surface unarticulated needs (and novel ideas)?
Feedback:
- Is there a mechanism for each team member to get constructive feedback from peers on their work?
- What is an optimal frequency for such feedback (from a point of view of setting up an official structure)?
Both the above principles of visibility and feedback indicate that it is imperative to have a place to log highlights of each project’s work, so that visibility is created and feedback is enabled.
Constraints:
- Do team members have expectations set with each other around their level of availability, commitment or bandwidth?
- Is each team member aware of their own upper cap of capacity to deliver (given time and complexity of work), and is the amount of responsibility they take up commensurate to that capacity (to prevent backlogs)?
Mapping:
- Are roles and responsibilities clearly designated?
- In my experience, two people leading something often means no one is leading it (roles and responsibilities need careful delineation).
Consistency:
- Is there consistency across how different teams work (and the language they use) so there is interoperability within an organisation?
Affordance:
- In full team situations, does each team member individually understand how they can contribute to the space and what the rules of the game (or team norms) are?
- In each project team, does every member understand the big picture of the project and how their effort fits in?
[This article was written by Shayan Roy Chowdhury. Credits to Don Norman and Sachin Rekhi, whose work I leveraged for the first part of this article.]
